Looking forward to my conversation this evening with Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot beginning at 7 pm Pacific!
Details on how to tune in are available there at the Project Camelot website at this location, and I will be sure to post links to the replay here once that becomes available.
Note: The interview is now posted.
Special thanks to Professor James F. Tracy for posting my "Paging Dr. Zaius" essay over at his Memory Hole blog site.
I personally believe that his site and his own talented analysis are extremely important at this particular juncture in history, and that people around the entire world (and certainly those of us in the United States) owe him a particular debt of gratitude for his courage and diligence in analyzing areas that for a wide variety of reasons some people would like to cover up.
Regular readers of this blog should familiarize themselves with his work, if they have not already.
For readers coming here perhaps for the first time from his website, the following previous posts attempt to give some broad overview and contain lists of links to various subjects covered on these pages:
Additionally, visitors familiar with Memory Hole may find the following posts to cover subjects of particular interest:
"Titanic conspiracy, due diligence, natural law and mind control"
"Taking your picture against your will is a violation of natural law"
"Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality" (Jon was a recent guest on Memory Hole and Professor Tracy's "Checkin' it Out" series of interviews)
They may also want to check out the recent interview on Red Ice radio in which I discuss some of the topics covered in my latest book. Posts published subsequent to that interview, which also discuss the "Roman conspiracy" include:
There is also a series of recent posts detailing the astonishing fact that all the ancient scriptures and sacred traditions of humanity -- across an incredible geographic dispersion and across centuries and even millennia of time -- can be shown to share a detailed system of celestial metaphor, including the scriptures we know today as "the Bible." For reasons related to the imposition of a system of control across western Europe (eventually spreading much farther than that), those connections have been suppressed and replaced with the dominant "literalistic" interpretations. To dive into the discussions of that topic, any of the recent posts discussing that common ancient system will contain links to many of the others -- good places to start include "Vajra: the Thunderbolt" or "Brisingamen, the necklace of Freya."
Finally, this blog is fully searchable (use the small window in the upper-left area on most devices and screens), so you can look for posts associated with keywords of your own choosing.
Hope to see you back again soon!
image: The symbol of the Vajra (also called the Dorje in Tibet and Nepal), the thunderbolt of Indra. Wikimedia commons (link).
The previous post examined verses from the Shatapatha Brahmana, an ancient text from the Vedic period of India, to find clear evidence of the operation of the universal system of celestial metaphor which underlies and unites all of the world's sacred traditions -- or did, prior to the advent of aggressive literalism, primarily literalistic Christianity, which starting in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries AD set about reinterpreting the esoteric scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, declaring them to be literal instead of metaphorical, and then suppressing and eliminating the ancient esoteric wisdom that those celestial myths were intended to convey and exporting its specific brand of literalism to the rest of the world, starting in Europe and working its way out.
That this ancient system of celestial metaphor united virtually all of the world's sacred traditions is evident from the fact that the post examining the Vedic literature found numerous very distinct metaphorical and symbolic parallels to the sacred texts of ancient Egypt -- and previous posts have demonstrated that the same system was at work in the sacred mythologies of the ancient Greeks, the ancient Norse, the Indians of North America, among the sacred myths of Japan, and even (in fact, especially) among the stories in the Old Testament (see here [towards the bottom of that post, where it discusses Sarai/Sarah] and here and here, for instance) and the New Testament (see here and here, for instance).
Abundant evidence can be found in the myths and sacred traditions of other cultures around the world, including from the ancient Sumerians, the Maori of New Zealand, the people of Australia and Africa, the civilizations of Central America, and from China and other parts of Asia.
As the previous post pointed out, the staggering dispersal of this common system of celestial metaphor argues strongly for the existence of some predecessor civilization, which somehow bequeathed this system to all humanity. There are too many common elements to argue that all the same metaphors somehow sprang up independently, and the cultures are so widely dispersed both in space and time that it is difficult to argue that the system spread from one culture to another (although that is another possible explanation).
Thus, the Vedic myths and symbols discussed previously, and their celestial-metaphorical connections, have tremendous import for our view of human history, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The content of what they are teaching has tremendous import for each and every one of us, even beyond what they teach us about the ancient history of the human race.
Because the fact that all these sacred texts in general embody celestial, zodiacal metaphors and the fact that the Vishnu / Dadhyank / Osiris myths specifically embody the metaphor of the human body "cast down" horizontally and then "stood back up" vertically were intended to point us to liberating truths about our human condition, and especially about our individual power to transcend the "theater" of reality that we believe we are bound by, and to create new realities. This is the message of all of the "star myths" of the world -- including, I would argue, the star myths in the Bible.
We saw in the previous post about Vishnu, the Ashvins, and Dadhyank that the metaphors in the Vedic text itself clearly reference specific points around the zodiac wheel, that wheel of constellations through which the sun appears to travel throughout the year, based upon the earth's annual orbit (for a visual explanation of how the sun "appears to travel" through the zodiac, and the connection of that travel to some of the most important ancient mythologies of the world, see this YouTube video which I made a couple years ago).
Most especially, the text cited contained metaphors which pointed to the "vertical column" that runs from the bottom of the zodiac wheel to the top: the "pole" which connects the winter solstice (at the very "bottom of the year") to the summer solstice (at the "top of the year"). References in the Vedic text to this vertical line between the solstices include the reference to the Ashvins (who are associated with the Twins of Gemini, at the top of the year), to the horse's head (associated with Sagittarius), to a bow and arrows (also associated with Sagittarius), to ants (possibly also associated with Sagittarius, if my argument that these ants are akin to the locusts that are another symbol used in ancient myth to reference the stars of Sagittarius), and indirectly to the weapon called the Vajra, which other Vedic texts tell us was made from the bones of Dadhyank and which I believe can be shown to be akin to the Djed column of ancient Egypt.
The Vajra, and its origin, is discussed in more detail in another ancient Vedic text, the Rig Veda (Book I of which can be read online in an English translation by Ralph T. H. Griffith, first published in 1896). There, beginning in Rig Veda 1.84.13, we read that the weapon of Indra, which is Vajra the thunderbolt, is made from the bones of Dadhyank (whose name is also rendered as Dadhyach, Dadhyanc, and even Dadhichi and Dadheech):
13 With bones of Dadhyach for his arms, Indra, resistless in attack,
Struck nine-and-ninety Vrtras dead.
14 He, searching for the horse's head, removed among the mountains, found
At Saryanavan what he sought.
15 Then verily they recongnized the essential form of Tvastar's Bull,
Here in the mansion of the Moon.
16 Who yokes to-day unto the pole of Order the strong and passionate steers of checkless spirit,
With shaft-armed mouths, heart-piercing, health bestowing?
Long shall he live who richly pays their service.
The Vajra in these verses is directly associated with the horse's head of Dadhyank which we discussed in the previous post -- and since the Vajra originates from the bones of that horse-headed Dadhyank we can see from the above zodiac-wheel diagram that it may well be associated with the vertical pole running from solstice to solstice. This vertical pole, as has been demonstrated previously, the ancient Egyptians symbolized as the Djed column (also called the Tat column by earlier scholars), the "backbone of Osiris."
And there are other reasons to believe that the Vajra is associated with this vertical pillar and with the Djed column. For one thing, the Vajra as it is traditionally depicted (and it is still a vital and central symbol used in Hinduism and Buddhism to this day) resembles the Djed column, and it is usually depicted either horizontally (as in the image above, of a Vajra in Nepal, where it is usually called a Dorje) or vertically (as in the image below, of Indra holding a Vajra in his right hand while seated at the top of a column or pillar, from a relief in Cambodia):
Another clue is the fact that the Vajra is quite often "doubled" into the form of a "crossed Vajra," which obviously parallels the Djed-column of Egypt, which was depicted as being both the horizontal or "cast down" and then triumphantly "raised up." As such, the Vajra is emblematic of the two parts of human nature: the horizontal or "animal" aspect of our incarnation and our often-forgotten "spiritual" side, which we must "raise up" like the vertical Djed-column or Vajra, in order to transcend this physical vehicle (see the quotation from pages 414-415 of Alvin Boyd Kuhn's Lost Light in this previous post, in which he declares that "the cross is but the badge of our incarnation, the axial crossing of soul and body, consciousness and substance, in one organic unity. An animal nature that walked horizontally to the earth, and a divine nature that walked upright crossed their lines of force and consciousness in the same organism").
The association of the cross with the Djed column in Egypt is quite explicitly established in the famous and important image of the Ankh-cross upon a Djed column from the Book of the Dead of Ani, shown below:
The fact that the Vajra is fashioned from the bones of Dadhyank is another connection between the Vajra and the Djed column (which represents the backbone of Osiris, and can be seen to have symbolically vertebral sections in the image above from the Ani Papyrus, which is typical of the Djed-column imagery in ancient Egyptian art).
Note also the curious fact that the name of the being whose bones furnish the Vajra (that is to say, Dadhyank) contains the word "Ankh" itself! I do not believe for an instant that this is a coincidence. The linguistic unit "Ankh" is incredibly important, and is found throughout the world, always signifying anointing (a word which itself is linguistically related to the word "Ankh," as Alvin Boyd Kuhn demonstrates). It is found at Angkor Wat, and Angola, and in the tribe of the Anglo-Saxons, and in the English word "king."
In Lost Light, Alvin Boyd Kuhn writes of this linguistic unit:
The etymology of the word sheds much light upon this whole confused matter. The "oint" portion of it is of course the French softening of the Latin "unct" stem; and this, whether philologists have yet discovered the connection or not, is derived from that mighty symbol of mingled divinity and humanity of ancient Egypt -- the A N K H cross. The word Ankh, meaning love, life and tie, or life as the result of tying together by attraction or love the two nodes of life's polarity, spirit and matter, suggests always and fundamentally the incarnation. For this is the "ankh-ing" of the two poles of being everywhere basic to life. The "unction" of the sacrament is really just the "junction" of the two life energies, with the "j" left off the word. Therefore the "anointing" is the pouring of the "oil of gladness," the spiritual nature, upon the mortal nature of living man. 186-187.
In a different work, entitled The Esoteric Structure of the Alphabet and Its Hidden Mystical Language, Kuhn continues along this same theme, declaring that the same root is responsible for "Our most common word, thing" which "likewise comes from A N K H, as a thing is that which is created by the union of spirit and matter, a divine conception and atomic substance" (9). So does the word "to know, in Greek gnosco, German kennen, English ken. What constitutes the knowing act? The joining together of two things, consciousness and an object of consciousness" (9). Even the word join and all its relatives (such as junction, juncture, and adjunct) Kuhn shows to be related to this ancient Egyptian cross (in which two natures are joined), whose sounds "n" and "k" are clearly seen therein.
Kuhn goes on: "With even the N dropping out we have yoke, that which ties two oxen together. And in Sanskrit it comes out as yoga, which in reality stands for yonga, meaning union" (9).
These are amazing connections indeed! And they are supported by the fact that the Vajra in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Tantric science carries all these connotations. Its connection to the backbone of Osiris (the Djed) and to the Ankh (clearly expressed by its arising from the bones of Dadhyank) indicate that Kuhn is correct when he associates the root of the word Ankh with the root of the word yoga, which involves the raising of the life force along the chakra system and the spine.
In fact, I would point out that the passage cited above from the Rig Veda clearly seems to support Kuhn's assertion that the word "yoke" is related to this concept as well: note that in verse 16 of Hymn 84 we are told in association with the discussion of the thunderbolt weapon that Indra "yokes today unto the pole of Order the strong and passionate steers of checkless spirit." The metaphor is a powerful one. If we reside only at the level of literalism, we will assume that the verse is telling us about a god who hitches up some divine oxen of some sort to draw his vehicle through the sky. But on an esoteric level, this verse (uttered in a passage that deals with the thunderbolt Vajra, which we have now established to be related to the concepts symbolized in the Ankh and the Djed) tells us that it is the spirit side of the human equation (the divine spark, buried in the matter of incarnation) which must be the driver which will guide the brute nature of the body (allegorized as "the strong and passionate steers") into the upward direction of transcendence.
This spark then, this divine current running through the human animal, is in fact what is meant by the thunderbolt! The thunderbolt of Vajra is a weapon for slaying demons when it appears in the allegorical metaphorical myth-stories, but the clear identification of the Vajra with the "vertical" component of the human being teaches us that by the thunderbolt, the esoteric myths are referring to our divine indwelling spiritual force! That, and no other, is the "weapon" by which we will triumph in this underworld of incarnate existence.
Notice that we have now intimately linked the human body (with its indwelling divine fire) and the celestial realms represented by the zodiac wheel, whose equinoxes and solstices are the markers which yield to us the "cross" of the horizontal corpse or mummy and the vertical triumphant "raised mummy" or "raised Djed-column" or "standing-up Osiris" or Vajra column. All the myths do this. They conflate the microcosm of the incarnate human being with the macrocosm of the infinite universe and its stars and planets.
And here we will pause this examination, which could go on and on and on, with the final crucially important observation that it is with this metaphor that the ancient teachers intended to tell us that we are not ultimately limited or bound by the apparent limitations of what we usually see as "reality." The material pattern -- the lower half of the zodiac wheel through which we toil in this incarnation -- is merely the projection and reflection of the spiritual upper half. It is spirit which is ultimately superior and transcendent -- not matter. It is the vertical pillar that rises victorious, where previously there was only the horizontal, cast-down corpse.
This final observation ties us directly back to the previous essay reflecting on the paradigm-shattering speech given by Jon Rappoport at the Secret Space Program conference in San Mateo at the end of June of this year. Armed with the "thunderbolt" of the indwelling divine spirit, we can actually break free of the imprisoning "realities" which other people (sometimes well-intentioned, and often-times not well-intentioned) forge for us and ask us to conform to and dwell within.
The message of all the ancient scriptures is not a message of imprisonment (although they are often seen that way: "do this; don't do this"). Their message was intended to be one of liberation, inviting us to reject false realities and constructs and act "in God's image" to create realities ourselves. There are people who know that this is the true message of the esoteric teachings, and who are using those powers to forge binding artificial realities through which they can control and oppress and enslave other human beings.
The orangutans in the original 1968 Planet of the Apes are a perfect example of this class of "custodians of the official, sanctioned (and false) reality." It stands to reason that those who are busy creating reality with a mind to enslaving others would not want the rest of the men and women on the planet to wake up to their own power to reject the false limitations of the imposed realities and to create their own, more positive reality.
They do not want the men and women of the world to know that they each contain a thunderbolt, and they do not want them to individually set about raising their own internal Djed-column, or Ankh, or Vajra.
Thus, it stands to reason that they do not want the world to know that this truth is what the ancient scriptures are really all about.
images: Wikimedia commons (Osiris link and Vishnu link).
Pop quiz (that you will never be given within the halls of academia):
Choose the best answer:
a) Vedism came from the sacred myths of ancient Egypt.
b) The sacred myths of ancient Egypt came from Vedism.
c) They both came from some even earlier, now unknown predecessor civilization (which, for want of a better term, some have called "Atlantis").
d) None of the above.
Notice that choice d) is the default position of current academia, which admits to no contact between the ancient cultures of the world, in spite of the fact that all of them can be shown to use a common, detailed, sophisticated system of celestial metaphor which almost certainly did not spring up independently with all of its details intact in multiple different cultures around the world, none of whom had any contact with one another.
Therefore, we can immediately eliminate choice d) and concentrate on the other three. Those who still wish to cling to choice d) should find evidence below to eliminate that choice beyond the shadow of a doubt.
The Shatapatha Brahmana or Satapatha Brahmana is one of the ancient sacred texts of the Vedic period, thought to date to at least 700 BC, although Vedism stretches back in time still further, to as early as 1750 BC or even earlier. The translation of the entire text into English by Julius Eggeling (completed between 1882 and 1900) can be found online here.
An important and revealing series of events described in the fourteenth book of the Shatapatha Brahmana provides clear and powerful connections to the myth-cycle of Osiris, and to other star-myths from around the world. The first section of Book XIV of the Shatapatha Brahmana can be foundhere.
At first, it may seem bewildering in the obscurity of its arcane-sounding declarations and descriptions. But meditate upon the text for a while, armed with an understanding of the system of celestial metaphor common to the sacred myth-systems from Africa to Australia, from the Norse to the North American Indian, and from Achaia (ancient Greece) to Aotearoa (New Zealand), and fascinating connections will begin to assert themselves, and divine voices will whisper meanings that previously were hidden from sight.
The text immediately declares, in the first verse (14:1:1:1) that what follows is "a sacrificial session." Beginning in verse 5, we learn of the sacrifice of Vishnu (words in parentheses are clarifications added by the translator -- one may or may not agree with his decisions):
5 Vishnu first attained it, and he became the most excellent of the gods; whence people say, 'Vishnu is the most excellent of the gods.'
6 Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Aditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.
7 Taking his bow, together with three arrows, he stepped forth. He stood, resting his head on the end of the bow. Not daring to attack him, the gods sat themselves down all around him.
8 Then the ants said -- these ants (vamri), doubtless, were that (kind called) 'upadika' -- 'What would ye give to him who should gnaw the bowstring?' -- 'We would give him the (constant) enjoyment of food, and he would find water even in the desert: so we would give him every enjoyment of food.' -- 'So be it,' they said.
9 Having gone nigh unto him, they gnawed his bowstring. When it was cut, the ends of the bow, springing asunder, cut off Vishnu's head.
10 It fell with (the sound) 'ghrin;' and on falling it became yonder sun. And the rest (of the body) lay stretched out (with the top part) towards the east. And inasmuch as it fell with (the sound) 'ghrin,' therefore Gharma (was called) and inasmuch as he was stretched out (pra-vrig), therefrom the Pravargya (took its name).
11 The gods spake, 'Verily, our great hero (mahan virah) has fallen:' therefrom the Mahavira pot (was named). And the vital sap which flowed from him they wiped up (sam-mrig) with their hands, whence the Samrag.
[. . .]
20 Now this was heard by the Ashvins -- 'Verily, Dadhyank Atharvana knows his pure essence, this Sacrifice, -- how his head of the Sacrifice is put on again, how this Sacrifice becomes complete.'
21 They went up to him and said, 'We two will become thy pupils.' -- 'What are ye wishing to learn?' he asked. -- 'This pure essence, this Sacrifice, -- how this head of the Sacrifice is put on again, how this Sacrifice becomes complete,' they replied.
22 He said, 'I was spoken to by Indra saying, "If thou teachest this to any one else, I shall cut off thy head;" therefore I am afraid lest he should indeed cut off my head: I cannot take you as my pupils.'
23 They said, 'We two shall protect thee from him.' -- 'How will ye protect me?' he replied. -- They said, 'When thou wilt have received us as thy pupils, we shall cut off thy head and put it aside elsewhere; then we shall fetch the head of a horse, and put it on thee: therewith thou wilt teach us; and when thou wilt have taught us, then Indra will cut off that head of thine; and we shall fetch thine own head, and put it on thee again.' -- 'So be it,' he replied.
Now, this is certainly a difficult series of metaphors. But, if one reads The Undying Stars and pays careful attention to the discussion of the zodiac metaphors found for example in the New Testament of the Bible, the entire scenario should begin to become quite clear. I would argue that this exchange involves the mighty "cross" of the year, described in this previous post from Summer Solstice 2014.
We have already seen that the line dividing the zodiac wheel horizontally -- the line connecting the two equinoxes -- is associated in myths the world over with sacrifice. See for example this previous post, as well as the discussion found in the first three chapters of The Undying Stars, available for preview online. It was at the point of the autumnal equinox that the dying god was "cast down," and depicted in ancient Egypt as the god Osiris in his mummy-casket, lying upon his back: stretched out horizontally. He was the sun in the "underworld" -- the part of the zodiac wheel below the line.
On the other hand, at the point of the winter solstice, the sun that has been toiling through the "underworld" of the lower half of the zodiac makes its annual turn and begins to ascend back towards the summer solstice. The ancient Egyptian myth-symbols represented this as the "raising of the mummy of Osiris" from the horizontal (cast down) position to the vertical (raised up) position, as explained by Alvin Boyd Kuhn in passages cited in the previously-linked discussion of the summer solstice.
This imagery was among the most potent and the most powerful in all of the ancient sacred system: it was the image of the raising of the Djed column (the backbone of Osiris, in ancient Egypt), the image of the dead ascending again to life. It was the imagery of the Ankh cross: the reassertion of the divine aspect in every man or woman, which is buried like a dying or cast-down god inside the horizontal or "animal" nature of our incarnate body (animals, as Alvin Boyd Kuhn points out, go around horizontally, while men and women are supposed to walk erect).
With this understanding, the cryptic passage from the Shatapatha Brahmana cited above begins to resolve itself into something quite understandable, and quite powerful: the passage is describing Vishnu undergoing the very same "sacrifice" as the sacrifice Osiris undergoes, his casting down into the underworld and his being stretched out in death, and then his subsequent triumphant rising and transcending.
In the verses leading up to verse 10, we read of Vishnu's beheading, which involves his first leaning his head on his bow in rest (verse 7). This "resting of his head" on his upright bow indicates that we are talking about a solstice position, where the sun "stands still" for three days (the word solstice itself acknowledges this phenomenon -- it means "sun station" or "sun stationary point"). For an explanation of why the sun seems to "stand still" at the solstice, see this previous post. The fact that Vishnu is described as taking "three arrows" at this point certainly seems to invoke the three-days during which the sun seems to rest at each solstice.
Looking at the zodiac wheel diagram above, we can see which solstice the sacred Vedic myths reference here: it is the solstice associated with the Archer: the winter solstice (which in the northern hemisphere takes place at the juncture between the signs of Sagittarius and Capricorn, as can be seen in the diagram: Sagittarius is just barely visible, peeking out behind the caption that says "Vertical column: the Djed raised up"). This is the lowest point of the year, when the Sun is most truly at the very "grave."
It is at this point that we read about the ants, who decide to gnaw the bowstring, causing the ends of Vishnu's bow to spring asunder, cutting off his head (verses 8 and 9). The cutting off of Vishnu's head would seem to represent the sun at winter solstice, where the head of the sun has "fallen" to its lowest point of the year (it rises furthest south along the eastern horizon, and sets furthest south along the western horizon). The ants may be representative of Sagittarius as well: the stars of Sagittarius were often anciently described as resembling a locust -- most clearly, in the New Testament book of Revelation chapter 9 (see this previous post). So, the ants in the Shatapatha Brahmana may well be an embodiment of this rather insect-like zodiac constellation also, and their action of "decapitating" Vishnu an expression of this part of the sun's annual journey. In reality, the sun's "head" has been "falling" towards this lowest point ever since it began to decline downward from the top of the zodiac, and most certainly ever since it crossed the "sacrifice" line of the fall equinox, but it reaches the bottom of the wheel just after passing through the sign of Sagittarius.
In verse 10, we read of the laid-out body of the now-headless Vishnu: it lies stretched out towards the east. This is very reminiscent of the laid-out body of Osiris (the sun in the underworld), lying inert in the land of the dead. Note that the progress of the sun through the underworld begins at the western horizon and proceeds all the way to the eastern horizon, where the sun is reborn and where it springs triumphantly again into the heavens. Thus it is quite appropriate that the Shatapatha Brahmana specifically tells us that Vishnu's body lay stretched out with its "top part" towards the east (verse 10).
Following this comes another passage, in which we have the hero-twins the Ashvins approaching the horse-headed Dadhyank or Dadhyanc, and cutting off his head and then fetching it back and putting it on him again (verses 20 through 23).
This all seems very mysterious, but the zodiac clues are unmistakable. The Ashvins are clearly associated with the Twins of Gemini (there are numerous commentaries in which this identification is explicitly drawn). Look again at the zodiac wheel diagram reproduced above, and note which sign is opposite to Sagittarius (who guards the lower base of the vertical line or column which connects the two solstices from the bottom of the year to the top). Why, it is the Twins of Gemini! By invoking the horse-headed Atharvana (a Seer or a Rishi) and the Twins, the sacred scriptures are indicating the line of the vertical solstice-column as clearly as it is possible to indicate it.
This line, as has already been discussed in the Summer Solstice 2014 post (supported by the analysis of Alvin Boyd Kuhn and Gerald Massey), is indicative of the triumphant Djed-column or Tat-Cross raised to its feet: Osiris raised from the dead, the divine life-spirit triumphant over the dead-matter of the animal body.
The case for the identification of Vishnu with Osiris, at least in this passage from the Shatapatha Brahmana, should now be complete. Additional evidence can be found in the fact that Vishnu is often traditionally depicted with blue-tinged skin, just as Osiris (the mummy-god) was often depicted with blue or green skin (since he is a corpse). Other common symbolic elements in their depiction can be seen in the juxtaposed images of the two gods, above.
Last but certainly not least, the Rishi Dadhyank mentioned in the texts cited above is closely associated with a special weapon known as Vajra, which resembles a column and in fact resembles in many ways the sacred Djed column of ancient Egypt and Osiris. There are Vedic texts which indicate that the Vajra was originally fashioned from the bones of the horse-headed Dadhyank, as the authors of Hamlet's Mill attest (page 393).
So, to return to our original question: did the ancient Vedic texts take their inspiration from the ancient Egyptian myths, or vice versa? Or, were they inspired by some common, now unknown, predecessor civilization?
To argue that all these incredibly precise details (details which are common to the ancient star-myth system found in myths and sacred stories around the world) just "popped up" independently in cultures with no contact or no common ancestor seems ridiculous on its face. It certainly violates Occam's proverbial razor. It is a possibility, but it is probably the least likely by a long shot (although it is the only alternative that is generally countenanced among academics).
If we had to say that one came from the other, we would probably conclude that Egypt must have influenced the Vedic texts, since the mythology of Osiris appears to have been fully formed long before the first Pyramid Texts were inscribed, the earliest of which date to c. 2400 BC (probably even predating the Vedic texts). But, we really have no way of knowing how long the sacred Vedic myths were passed down before they found their way into the very ancient texts of Vedic literature. Nor do we know how long the Egyptian star-myths were passed down before they informed the events described in the Pyramid Texts.
Given the tremendous antiquity of each tradition, it is quite likely that the real answer to the question posed at the outset of this post is "c) the myth-imagery in the Vedic system and the Egyptian system each came from some even earlier, now unknown predecessor civilization (which, for want of a better term, some have called Atlantis*)." The fact that the myths share clear evidence of common symbology, and yet are so different in their outward trappings, also seems to argue that they both developed from some more-remote common ancestral culture, rather than that one borrowed from the other.
There is other evidence around the globe which suggests the existence of a predecessor civilization of tremendous antiquity, tremendous sophistication, world-wide reach, and possibly advanced technological ability. However, as discussed towards the end of this previous post, the current Presidents of the Academy, the Ministers of Science and Defenders of the Faith, are as loath to admit the possibility of such a civilization as the orangutans from the 1968 version of Planet of the Apes, whose most capable spokesman was the unforgettable Dr. Zaius, were loath to admit (publicly) the possibility of an advanced human civilization prior to the rise of the apes (even though Dr. Zaius admitted privately that he had long been aware of the evidence which pointed to such a civilization).
The evidence, however, is all around us on our planet, not only in the archaeological remains but also in the ancient myths in one culture after another after another. It is too much evidence to deny, and it is too much evidence to ignore.
If you answered c) to the question above, I'm with you.
-------------------------------
* Use of the term "Atlantis" to describe an advanced predecessor civilization now lost to history does not necessarily imply belief in a sinking island of mythology. John Anthony West offers a good explanation of his use of this term in his essential Serpent in the Sky, on pages 13-14:
How does a complex civilization spring full-blown into being? Look at a 1905 automobile and compare it to a modern one. There is no mistaking the process of 'development.' But in Egypt there are no parallels. Everything is there right at the start.
The answer to the mystery is of course obvious, but because it is repellent to the prevailing cast of modern thinking, it is seldom seriously considered. Egyptian civilisation was not a 'development', it was a legacy.
Following an observation made by Schwaller de Lubicz, it is now possible virtually to prove the existence of another, and perhaps greater civilization ante-dating dynastic Egypt -- and all other known civilizations -- by millennia. In other words, it is now possible to prove 'Atlantis', and simultaneously, the historical reality of the Biblical Flood. (I use inverted commas around 'Atlantis' since it is not the physical location that is at issue here, but rather the existence of a civilization sufficiently sophisticated and sufficiently ancient to give rise to the legend.)
above: 1968 film trailer for Planet of the Apes (link).
The original 1968 film Planet of the Apes received an honorary Academy Award for the amazing makeup used to create the expressive ape characters (the human actors shine through in a way that is truly wonderful to behold, while at the same time looking spellbindingly simian), as well as nominations for Best Costume Design (the costumes create a blend of dignity and cool for the cynical orangutans, a blend of utility and academia in the earnest chimpanzees, and a feeling of raw menace in the militaristic gorillas) and Best Original Score (for a remarkably unsettling musical soundtrack that sets your teeth on edge from the outset and keeps them there for the remainder of the film).
But as outstanding as all those achievements truly were, and as essential a role as that artistry played in creating the disturbingly immersive world of the screenplay, to praise the 1968 Planet of the Apes merely for its groundbreaking effects, makeup, and music misses what I believe to be the film's towering achievement in the epistemological realm.
To be fair, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does not actually have an Oscar category for "Best Epistemological Film," although they do not have an Oscar for "Best Makeup" either, and that didn't stop them from awarding an honorary award for John Chambers (1922 - 2001) for his makeup effects in the film (he was also the makeup legend responsible for Mr. Spock's signature ears). The film deserves to be recognized in the "search for truth" department, because in addition to all its other memorable and ground-breaking aspects, its real theme centers around the question: "Do we have the courage to face the truth?"
The movie gets right into that theme with the important lead-in sequences, after the ship has crashed and the three survivors are making their way through the barren and inhospitable terrain of the Forbidden Zone. Right away, protagonist George Taylor (whom we have already seen from his opening monologue to be both cynical and philosophical) launches into a series of verbal jabs at officer Landon, establishing the theme of "letting go of illusions that prevent us from seeing the truth" (sequence begins at 0:13:17):
Taylor: We’ve got food and water enough for three days.
Dodge: How long is a day?
Taylor: That’s a good question. Landon . . . Hey, Landon! Join the expedition.
Landon: Sorry, I was thinkin’ about Stuart. What do you suppose happened?
Taylor: Air leak: she died in her sleep.
Landon: You don’t seem very cut-up about it.
Taylor: It’s a little late for a wake: she’s been dead nearly a year.
Landon: That means we’ve been away from Earth for eighteen months.
Taylor: Our time. You’ve gone grey. Apart from that you look pretty chipper for a man who’s two thousand thirty-one years old. I read the clocks: they bear out Haslan’s hypothesis. We’ve been away from Earth for two thousand years, give or take a decade. Still can’t accept it? Time’s wiped out everything you ever knew: it’s all dust.
Landon: Prove it! If we can’t get back, it’s still just a theory.
Taylor: It’s a fact, Landon. Buy it: you’ll sleep better.
This exchange establishes Taylor as a devotee of the unvarnished truth and an enemy of cherished illusions, although he will soon face challenges which will reveal his own difficulty in getting past some of his own assumptions.
In case the above exchange does not signal to us that this film will be pushing boundaries in areas that go far beyond makeup and costume, the next character dialogue (which follows several minutes of trudging across the eerie and forboding landscape) continues where that one left off, and amplifies it. The three travelers collapse in the shelter of a large boulder after escaping an avalanche of rolling rocks, and check their supplies (sequence begins at 0:17:54):
Taylor: Everybody all right? Water check.
Dodge: Eight ounces.
Dodge: It doesn’t add up: thunder and lightning and no rain. Cloud cover at night. That strange luminosity.
Landon: If we could just get a fix.
Taylor: What would that tell you? I’ve told you where you are and when you are.
Landon: All right-all right.
Taylor: You’re three hundred light years from your precious planet. Your loved ones are dead and forgotten for twenty centuries – twenty centuries! Even if you could get back, they’d think you were something that fell out of a tree.
Dodge: Aww, Taylor, quit ridin’ him.
Taylor: There’s just one reality left: we are here and it is now. You get hold of that and hang onto it, or you might as well be dead.
Landon: I’m prepared to die.
Taylor: He’s prepared to die! Doesn’t that make you misty! Chalk up another victory for the human spirit!
These two exchanges are vital to setting up the biting social commentary that the film will later deliver through the portrayal of a society of apes that is every bit as intolerant and as unwilling to give its citizens access to the truth as . . . well, societies that might be found on other planets in the galaxy where orangutans are not yet in charge.
Primarily, the film achieves this critique through the words and actions of the exalted, orange-clad, perfectly-coiffed and terribly human orangutans, including Dr. Maximus (Commissioner for Animal Affairs), Dr. Honorious (Deputy Minister of Justice), an orangutan identified primarily as "Mr. President" (President of the National Academy), and most importantly the memorable Dr. Zaius, Minister of Science and Chief Defender of the Faith. There are plenty of humorous "human-ape inversion" lines and gags delivered by the chimpanzees and the gorillas, but it is the casual, self-assured, ruthless and utterly cynical orangutans who are the most chilling -- and the most human. They are completely confident in their ability to use smooth argument, condescending ridicule, and the well-placed reference to the scrolls of scripture to triumph over any challenge to their unquestioned authority, and they demonstrate a relish in doing so which is absolutely believable to the viewer -- as if they truly had been doing it their entire lives.
We learn that Dr. Zaius, at least, knows that the dogma in his scrolls cannot stand up to the evidence: that he is aware that humans once ruled the world and even possessed technologies that far surpassed anything the apes have achieved. But he has little fear that his system of mind control will ever be overturned: he ruthlessly wields the power of the military establishment -- and even more frighteningly, the power of the medical establishment -- to keep any inconvenient evidence from spreading doubt among the intellectual class of the chimpanzees.
The climactic scene in the cave by the sea shows that, although he says he will happily admit he is wrong if evidence can be found to support a different view of history, Dr. Zaius possesses skills at sophistry that are capable of defusing almost any evidence that can be presented to him -- but that he is not above dynamiting the evidence if any is found that cannot be explained away even by such a talented and charming sophist as himself. Here are two exchanges that dramatically bring out the battle between those with access to paradigm-shifting evidence, and those who are willing to protect that paradigm (whose motto might be, "You can't handle the truth!")(sequence begins at 1:32:30):
Cornelius: We never meant to be treasonous, sir. But up there, in the face of that cliff, there is a vast cave . . . . and in that cave a fabulous treasure of fossils and artifacts.
Dr. Zaius: I’ve seen some of your fossils and artifacts: they’re worthless.
Taylor: There’s your minister of science! Honor-bound to expand the frontiers of knowledge –
Cornelius: Taylor, please!
Taylor: Except that he’s also chief defender of the faith!
Dr. Zaius: There is no contradiction between faith and science – true science.
Taylor: Are you willing to put that statement to the test?
Cornelius: Taylor, I would much rather that –
Taylor: Take it easy – you saved me from this fanatic: maybe I can return the favor.
Dr. Zaius: What is your proposal?
Taylor: When were those sacred scrolls of yours written?
Dr. Zaius: Twelve hundred years ago.
Taylor: All right – now if they can prove those scrolls don’t tell the whole truth of your history: if they can find some real evidence of another culture from some remote past, will you let them off?
Dr. Zaius: Of course!
Taylor: Let’s go up to the cave.
And, inside the cave, here is part of the critical dialogue in which the evidence that overturns the false timeline of history that the orangutans have been pushing on society is revealed, and Dr. Zaius deftly turns it aside. Cornelius describes evidence at a layer he believes to be about 1300 years old, showing "barbarous" apes and "carniverous gorillas," and then he goes still deeper, to find evidence of more advanced societies (sequence beginning at 1:35:05):
Cornelius: But the artifacts lying here were found at this level – and date back seven hundred years earlier. That’s the paradox! For the more ancient culture, is the more advanced! Now admittedly, many of these objects are unidentified, but clearly they were fashioned by beings with a knowledge of metallurgy! Indeed, the fact that many of these tools are unknown to us suggests a culture which in certain ways equals our own! Some of the evidence is uncontestable.
Dr. Zaius: Don’t speak to me in absolutes! The evidence is contestable.
Cornelius: I apologize, sir.
Dr. Zaius: To begin with, your methods of dating the past are crude, to say the least. There are geologists on my staff who would laugh at your speculation.
This little exchange is very enlightening, and ironic! Because, while in the fictional allegory of the Planet of the Apes, they are talking about evidence that comes from about the time of Taylor's launch (recall in the very first conversation cited above that the astronauts have been away for two thousand years, give or take a decade), and hence are talking about a human civilization as the "more ancient more advanced culture," abundant evidence exists to assert the very same thing about evidence that we ourselves (meaning human beings on this planet) have found from the time before the earliest recorded civilizations!
In many ways, the more ancient the artifacts, the more advanced it is -- think for example of the evidence which shows that sites as ancient as Stonehenge and Giza appear to have been placed on our globe by builders who knew the precise size and shape of our spherical earth, and who what is more had the ability to place monuments around the planet along geometric great-circle lines and separated by numbers of degrees of latitude that are significant precessional numbers (showing that their locations were no accident, and that very ancient planners could measure longitudinal location better than anyone from any known civilization until the time of Captain Cook).
And yet such evidence is scoffed at and smoothly explained away by the human counterparts of Dr. Zaius and the other members of the Simian Academy. Evidence which is too difficult to explain away has often been destroyed after immediately being proclaimed to be the product of simple hoaxers. Some of this evidence, and the likely reasons why it is so rapidly dismissed, is discussed in The Undying Stars; other examples can be found in previous blog posts such as those found here.
One of the undeniable themes of the 1968 Planet of the Apes, of course, is its opposition to the literal interpretation of scripture. This aspect is quite clear in the tribunal scene in which radical theories that apes might have evolved
from more primitive creatures such as humans are mocked, and ape-scriptures are cited which are tellingly similar to Biblical teachings.
We could even argue that this aspect of the film is established much earlier, in the opening dialogues cited at the outset of our investigation, in which Taylor derisively jabs at Landon with the fact that they are now two thousand years past the world that Landon wants to hold on to (give or take a decade). That these two thousand years (give or take a decade) could also be seen as referring to the now-vanished "Bible times" and that this time span was chosen for that very purpose is evident from other clearly Biblical references in the same dialogue: the voyagers are informed they have enough food and water for three days, and there is a pointed reference to "thunder and lightning and no rain," which clearly describes the weird weather experienced in the Forbidden Zone but which would also recall scriptural verses such as Proverbs 25:14 and Jude 12.
The film is thus obviously attacking literal interpretations of ancient scriptures, if not every aspect of the scriptures themselves, as obstacles to the goal of knowing the truth which forms the film's overarching theme. And certainly the way they are portrayed as a tool for control, oppression, and the excusing of violence in the ape society makes this a valid criticism, for they have been used in just such a way for at least seventeen hundred years in human society, and continue to be so used to this day, as the film makers no doubt intended to say in their movie.
It is even possible that the film intends to point out some connection between those who accept illusions instead of facing the truth and those who ultimately destroyed human civilization -- a destruction that has been evident throughout the film but which Taylor somehow keeps himself from seeing until the very end of the film in the dramatic scene at the beach by the ruined Statue of Liberty (as if apes speaking English and writing in Latin characters should not have clued him in to the fact that he wasn't really on a planet three hundred light years from home all this time).
It is a poignant symbol.
The 1968 Planet of the Apes is a true piece of classic literature, and a masterful exploration of the pursuit of truth and knowing -- and the obstacles and illusions that impede that pursuit of truth and of knowing. It speaks as loudly to us today as it did to the first audiences who saw it in the theater, forty-six years ago and living in a very different world than the one in which we find ourselves, but a world as in need of those who are willing to pursue the truth as the world of 1968 -- or of 3978.
image: Seated Hermes, found in the Villa of the Papyri, Hurculaneum. Wikimedia commons (link).
One of the most important talks at the recent Secret Space Program -- among a lineup of talks that were all extremely important, each in its own way and also in conjunction with the others and with the larger thesis that was being explored from many different angles -- and one of the most memorable was undoubtedly the theatrical tour de force delivered by Jon Rappoport.
It was "theatrical" in the sense that Jon Rappoport seamlessly "channels" the voice and persona of whatever character he needs at any moment in order to illustrate his message, at times more than one character at a time (for instance, when depicting a dialogue or a debate), and at other times (after the fashion of the classical orators of antiquity) he will declare: "But I hear someone saying . . . " and then he will deliver the imagined counter-argument or challenge to his thesis, before he takes up his own voice again and demolishes their objection.
It was also theatrical in the sense that the heart of his message involved the use of "a little theater" -- as in, Let's show that the entire construct of reality is nothing but theater, a willful "suspension of disbelief" by those who have bought into it as if it were actually real. According to his argument, theater is a powerful tool by which we can "upset the apple cart," and demonstrate a different reality than the one that everyone is accepting as "the only reality" by unthinking default.
His talk was so successful in its theatricality and its delivery of his powerful message that it deserves to be seen and heard -- and I've been waiting to see if it would show up on YouTube or some other public outlet, so that I could link to the video of the presentation itself, allowing readers to go watch and listen to Jon Rappoport for themselves. However, so far it has not shown up in any public outlet that I have found, although it is available on the Secret Space Program official website, where those who purchased tickets to the event (either tickets to attend in-person or tickets to watch the streaming videos from the conference) can log in and see all of the videos of the presentations.
So, I will discuss what I felt to be the most important points of Jon's talk, along with some quotations from the talk itself -- with the hope that if the video does become public at some point in the future, readers can go check out the entire thing.
The core of his message is at once both simple and profound . . . and so challenging that it is difficult to face, so challenging that it invites all the "defense mechanisms" of the brain to find a way to bury the message somewhere that we won't see it or have to think about it.
His message is that imagination produces "reality."
This message is exactly what I am trying to articulate when I say that the unified message of every ancient mythology is shamanic and holographic at the same time -- but Jon Rappoport articulates this message without using either of those two terms, and in a way that is perhaps more direct, more profound, and more eloquent.
Let's "listen" to some of the most important parts of his lecture, to hear him in his own words. First, his argument that, in the most profound way possible, you are not material: that is, the part of "you" that actually makes you "you" is not the material part -- and the implications of that fact will be seen to be enormous, and will lead right into the most paradigm-upending pronouncements of quantum physics, and the "holographic universe" models that theoretical physicists have been proposing for the past forty or fifty years:
OK – so let’s take the materialist’s view of life: by conventional physics – conventional physics, OK? Everywhere’s particles. Tiny little particles. Call ‘em whatever you want: say they’re matter, say they’re energy, whatever you want – but that’s it! As far as you can go in the universe, that’s it, that’s what you’ve got when you boil it all down, you’ve got these little particles, right? Quarks and the things and the wavicles and the bah-bah-bah-bah. OK. And a conventional physicist will tell you, if you (you know) press them far enough, that none of these particles contain consciousness (what?) or the ability to understand anything – you know, what we ordinarily take to be understanding. They’re just particles, right? This thing here? Particles. Particles, particles, particles, particles, particles, particles. Brain? Same particles. No different! Don’t give me that – same particles. Sorry! So, how is it possible, then, that I’m talking and you understand what I’m saying? It’s not. Something impossible is happening here right now. Your brain is made out of the same particles mine is, same as the chair is, same as that camera, same as her lipstick, same as that strap, same as that thing you’re wearing, a bracelet. It’s all the same particles. Brain? Same particles. [. . . ] So by conventional physics (materialism, that’s the philosophy aspect of it) there’s no possible way that I could be talking and you could be sitting there understanding what I’m saying. But yet, it’s happening! Impossible! Therefore . . . you’re not material. Hate to break it to you. Neither am I. We’re inhabiting these things, but we’re not material. These things are material, but we’re not . . . and we possess this capacity to understand each other. Yes, the physical vehicle has a part to play, in the theatrical this and the that and the blueah-yuh-yuh-yuh, but that’s it. The actual understanding is non-material. Somebody says, “WAIT a minute! I don’t like that. Don’t try to pull that one on me. I’m not non-material, my good friend.” Well, too bad. So if that’s the case, here, what we’re really looking at is a roomful of non-material beings inhabiting bodies, who are basically being confronted with the idea that they have extremely powerful imagination and creative power . . . That doesn’t seem like a stretch to me anymore. “Well, Hey! If I’m not really made out of matter, some pretty wild things are goin’ on here! You know? And if imagination happens to be one of those things, well why not? Yeah, I could see that! I create something, I create something!” Now somebody says, “Well, can you snap your fingers and make an elephant appear over there?” Nope! Nope! I can make him appear to me (hey, Bozo), but . . . if we go back into ancient Tibet, which is a whole other topic, I think we can see that they were on the trail of making an elephant that everybody could see – that’s another story for another time, perhaps – but the point is: it’s non-material you, asking yourself the question, “What can I do?” It’s not John Q. Patterson, of 63 Gobby-gooby Drive in San Jose, California, blah-blah, with a phone number of this, and a cell, and a pair of glasses, and a fence around his yard, and a thing, saying “What can I do?” . . . That’s not it! Because that dude has absolutely no chance! He has no answers -- he has no clue! He’s the wrong character in the play to be dealing with that issue. [Beginning at 01:10:46 into the presentation from Sunday, June 29, 2014].
In other words, once we have established that you, your consciousness, is non-material and that it is not being produced by the material physical universe of particles (it cannot be), then some pretty incredible ramifications immediately begin to force their way to the front of the crowd and start demanding we address them -- ramifications such as, "if my consciousness is not actually being generated by these particles, then is it actually dependent upon these particles, or is it somehow above and beyond them?" and "if I am not dependent upon the particles, then does that mean I can create realities with this non-material consciousness I've got? What about creating an elephant?" and "If this is true, then to what degree do we have to accept the tidy little boundaries and structures that seem to give meaning and identity to everything?" (these questions are my extrapolations of some of the implications raised by the subject which Jon is discussing in the quoted segment above -- they are not quotations from the talk but I put them in quotation marks to point out that these are the kinds of questions that the point that Jon is making above should cause us to start asking).
These are implications raised by what I would call the holographic part of the formula "shamanic-holographic." But Jon Rappoport's real gift to the world is his articulation of what I would label the shamanic -- but what he calls the artist.
The artist (and the shaman) transcends the artificial boundaries of what most of us accept as "reality" -- and in doing so they actually create a new reality.
This is the message that I believe to be at the heart of all of the ancient myths of the world -- a shamanic message, a shamanic-holographic message. And, in a profound and memorable part of his talk (the most profound and memorable part, to me) Jon Rappoport made this very point by invoking the trickster god -- specifically Hermes. Listen as he describes the process by which certain people who want to control others have become very adept at "creating reality" and handing it off to people who don't know that they can transcend the limitations of those so-called realities, and how the message that the trickster god desperately wants to get through everybody's head is that this reality is just one big giant construct, and that we should be using our imagination to transcend it and to create our own!
But it is, unfortunately, the answer: Imagination. You would think, uh, well . . . I was hoping it wouldn’t be that. [. . .] To look at it another way: the bad guys are already using their imagination. They’ve been doing that for a long time. And what they have created is this strange thing called “reality.” Who knew, right? That’s what they do. In my book The Secret Behind Secret Societies, I go into this at, you know, excruciating and painful length. The bad guys have been painting the mural of reality for a long time, but they’re not interested in looking at it themselves, unlike an actual painter. They just want to turn it the other way and show it to everybody else and say: “This is reality! OK? This is it!” And the last thing they want other people to then do is to say: “Well, who painted that?” No -- they want to make it so convincing that people are just gonna say, “Yeah! OK! That’s reality! Yeah! It looks like a reality – Uh, you know . . . I don’t know what to compare it to (maybe a ringing cellphone) – uh, it is, it must be reality! And I will accept it because . . . it’s here! You see, this is the requirement. We’re all intelligent people, and, so, well, we all know: Let’s see -- what’s the definition of reality? What’s here! Anything else?” What else could it be? Now, if you’re a particularly perverse artist and you produced that painting, you’re going – “Man! You see this guy? He comes up to us in the museum and he goes: ‘Uh huh, yeah, that’s reality!’” In fact, in fact – this is very important – he doesn’t just look at the painting: he walks into the friggin’ painting. And he takes a left, and a right, and he finds a little cottage, and he says: “Can I move in?” and everybody says: “Sure!” And he moves in, and he stays there. That’s how convinced . . . So somebody else, not just one person, of course, but . . . the mural is being painted. Right? Has been, for a long time. That’s called imagination. Now we can say, “Well, we just don’t have what it takes to do a better, different mural. You know. We gotta go with the one that we got.” And what I’m saying is, “That’s all wrong, you see.” But it kind of depends on you, saying, actually, “You know, I have an imagination, and I’m going to imagine a different reality, and some means of getting there. I’m gonna do something big.” All right? Theater – let’s have a little theater. Let’s upset the apple cart for example with some theater. Poke a hole in the status quo. This is what the trickster-god, Hermes or Mercury, was all about in the ancient Greek culture. He had enough firepower to be the king of the Olympians, in that mythology, but he didn’t wanna be, because he could see that everybody else was glued to this single reality, and he wasn’t. He was passing through buildings, and cars, and planes, and whatever they had back then, he would just go through it and around it and he would look at everybody hypnotized by the, you know, the reality and he would say: “Man! Wake up! Don’t you see?” and if necessary he would resort to stealing things from people – go into their houses at night: “OK, so he put the TV here, let me move it over here – this is gonna be good, you know. And then let’s go into the kitchen cabinet, and let’s take all of the cereal, and put it underneath with all the, you know, the cleaners and the crap, right? And then, let’s see, what else, let’s take his wife’s clothes and put ‘em in his closet, and his clothes and put ‘em in his wife’s . . . yeah, right!” And that guy wakes up the next morning and he gets up and he goes: “Wha- wha- What happened!” You know? “What happened to the reality that’s been painted for me, that I’ve accepted? Everything is different! Were the clothes . . . honey, did you change the clothes?” “No, you must have done it: I didn’t do anything.” “What happened, where is this, why is this, why is the cereal under the sink, with the Clorox? Are you now putting Clorox in my cereal?” Imagination, creative power. This is what consciousness is about. And part of the so-called, you know, paranormal – that word – it really means “imagination and creative power.” So that imagination produces reality. [00:30:44. The passage at the end introduced by "This is what the trickster god . . ." begins at 00:35:27].
This is incredibly powerful stuff. This is exactly the message (I believe) of "the hidden god." That message, you recall, portrayed in countless ancient myths of the world, is that when we plunge into incarnation, we are given a "drink of forgetfulness," causing us to forget our divine nature (and what is a divine nature, if not a "reality-producing" nature?), and the message of all the myths (from the hunt by Isis for the chopped-up pieces of Osiris, to the parable of the prodigal son, eating among the swine and forgetful of who he really is) is this: "Wake up!" (or, in the words inscribed upon the stones at Delphi: "Know thyself!").
It is a message that we are prone to forgetting, even after we have learned it once -- we may have remembered at one point that we could be an artist, transcending boundaries and creating new realities, and then somehow forgotten it and settled down inside the boundaries of someone's artificial construct again, and accepted our circumscribed little identity inside of it. That's why we need the trickster god to come "upset the apple cart" and show us that those "realities" are actually nothing more than a bunch of conventions that everyone is giving power to by their acceptance of them, but that once such acceptance is withdrawn, the conventions will melt away into the insubstantiality they always were to begin with.
The trickster-god in mythology is like the "clown" in the plays of Shakespeare (whoever he was, or whoever she was, or whoever they were . . . if the plays of Shakespeare are the products of someone or "someones" other than the Bard of Avon). The clown (or fool) is allowed to say things to those in power (including and especially the king) that no one else dares to say -- and the king welcomes it -- in fact needs it. The clown shows that the entire structure, which certainly seems to have a "reality" of its own (and a reality that is enforced by real steel bayonets and the real threat of death for those who try to resist it), is nothing more than a great big social construct, a fabrication given its power by the very acquiescence of everyone who subscribes to it. It is a power that is derived, for the most part, from words themselves -- and the clown characters of Shakespeare are past masters at playing with words, punning upon the ambiguous meanings of words, taking words too literally or otherwise twisting their meaning around to subvert their original intention, and otherwise showing that the whole thing is a great big artificial reality to which the clown refuses to subscribe and in which the clown refuses to settle down like everybody else.
In other words, the clown is trying to wake us up from our doltish acceptance of the artificial structures that limit us -- that may, in fact, have been "realities" that were spun for us by wielders of "mind control," as Jon Rappoport indicates in the quotations above. A delightful modern movie in which a "clown" character illustrates the concept of "mind control" is (appropriately enough), entitled The Court Jester.
What's more, virtually every ancient myth-system around the world has a trickster-god, and (as Jon Rappoport indicates in his discussion of Hermes quoted above), that trickster-god is an extremely important god: in many ways, the most important of all of them (think, for example, of the fact that the tradition of Hermetism or Hermeticism and Hermetic wisdom have an origin attributed to Hermes, or more specifically to Hermes Trismegistus: Hermes recognized as the Greek god who is identified with Thoth of ancient Egypt).
In Norse myth, for example, the god associated with Hermes is in fact the most powerful of all the gods: Odin himself. "Odin's day" (or "Wotan's day") is our Wednesday, which is the day of Mercury (or Hermes) in the Latin languages (for example, it is Miercoles in Spanish). Odin is a boundary-crossing god: he famously (shamanically) transcends the boundaries of the physical body by hanging himself on the World-Tree of Yggdrasil for nine days and nine nights, until he has a vision and "sees" the twigs on the ground turn themselves into runes (remember that Thoth, the Egyptian god associated with Hermes and hence with Odin, was the god of writing and of scribes and the giver of the gift of writing to humanity also). Odin passes through the boundaries to retrieve knowledge from the "other side" -- he brings into being "new realities." He is also constantly depicted in Norse myth as having to break his word and having it trouble him very deeply.
Not only that, but Odin is blood-brother to a sort of evil twin, the real trickster-god of Norse myth: Loki. If one were asked which Norse god was the counterpart of the trickster-god Hermes, the most obvious answer would seem to be Loki, not Odin. But the Norse myths tell us that Odin and Loki each opened a vein in their arms, and Odin let his blood and the blood of Loki flow together: hence, in a very real sense, Odin and Loki are actually both two sides of the same god.
Loki, like Hermes, is a distinctly hermaphroditic god: we are told that of all the gods, his shape-shifting abilities are such that he can even take on the form of female creatures (Loki once famously turned himself into a mare in order to distract the work-horse of a threatening jotun -- and then when Loki became pregnant by that jotun's stallion, Loki became the dam of Odin's marvelous eight-legged steed, Sleipnir). So, Loki is a "boundary-crossing" god as well. In fact, Loki (like Odin) is constantly breaking his word, although unlike Odin he never seems to feel any remorse about it.
It is also interesting to note that, while Hermes is often portrayed as a slender, beardless youth (such as in the famous Seated Hermes statue shown above, which was discovered in the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum in Italy, a town like Pompeii on the slopes of Vesuvius, and which was horribly buried under fiery volcanic ash on that fateful day in AD 79), he is also portrayed in earlier art such as the Greek red-figure cup shown below as a bearded man with a wide-brimmed hat. Odin also famously wears such a hat in Norse mythology as well. In the scene below, Hermes is the one holding a caduceus staff -- the one topped with the twinned serpents intertwined into a figure that almost looks like a "figure eight."
image: Attic red-figure cup thought to date to the period 480 BC - 470 BC. Wikimedia commons (link).
Other trickster-gods in mythology are no less central and no less important. Among the tribes of North America, the most-important god is often Coyote, a famous trickster. When it is not Coyote, the trickster-god is often Raven. Significantly, these trickster-gods of the Native American myth-systems are the ones described as creating the world: in other words, they are creators of realities. But then, in the myths that follow the creation series, they are also the subverters of realities: the one who, by his actions, seems to say to the rest of the gods and to humanity, "Don't take this reality that you say I've created too seriously! Don't fall into the trap of imprisoning yourself inside of its artificial boundaries! You're supposed to take my example and then go forth and do likewise for yourselves!"
Among the Polynesians, including the Hawaiians and the Maori of New Zealand (Aotearoa), the central god is Maui, and he too is a trickster god. Once again, in both Hawaii and in Aotearoa, Maui is the one who creates the islands themselves, fishing them up out of the deep with his magical prepotent fishhook. But, once again, he is also a trickster, and as such he can be seen to be trying to wake everyone up to the same message that Hermes wants to convey, or Loki, or Coyote, or Jon Rappoport! In Maori mythology, too, Maui is more specifically also a shamanic god: frequently turning himself into birds, an attribute of shamans around the world, and an especially common transformation used by both Odin and Loki in the Norse mythologies.
Interestingly enough, all of the constellations which most likely find their mythical personification in the trickster-gods of the various world mythologies (such as Loki, Coyote, Raven, Maui, and the rest) seem to be located in a particularly significant portion of the sky (and boundary-line in the annual zodiac wheel).
The double-hemisphere "full sky star chart" shown below is not as helpful as it perhaps could be, in that it "curves" the constellations near its edges to replicate the curve one would find on an actual globe or celestial sphere (click here for an enlargement, but without my added constellation labels), but in it one can see that near the constellation Virgo there is a prominent "Coyote" constellation (that is to say, Lupus the Wolf constellation is my informed opinion as to the origin of the trickster-god Coyote) and not far from that Corvus the Crow (that is to say, my informed opinion as to the probable stellar origin of the trickster-god Raven; to see Corvus a bit better and to get some help in locating him in the night sky, see this previous post).
Note that I have already established (to my own satisfaction, at least) the identification of Loki with the constellation Boötes -- see the arguments put forward in this previous post. The myth that most firmly establishes Loki as the embodiment in myth of Boötes is, in my opinion, his antics that bring a smile to the lips of Skadi (who is clearly playing the role of Virgo, as that post demonstrates: the stars of Virgo having a famously coy smile and one which appears in many other world star-myths, including the myth of Amaterasu in Japan and of Sarai/Sarah in the Old Testament). However, the identification is strengthened (I would even venture to say, proven) by the myths of the theft by Loki of the necklace of the goddess Freya and of the theft by Loki of the hair of the goddess Sif, both of which are next to the constellation Boötes and also, of course, to Virgo (whom each of these goddesses is portraying in her turn). These theft-myths are discussed in this previous post: "Brisingamen, the necklace of Freya."
Maui too can be identified with Boötes, for he has as his consort Hina, who is almost certainly Virgo. Thus, we can see that a great many of the most-important tricksters of the world's mythology (including Loki, Maui, Coyote, and Raven) are located in one very specific part of the sky.
Why would this particular part of the sky furnish the trickster-gods of the world's star-myths?
I would argue that the answer lies in the fact that these constellations are all very near to Virgo and to the crossing-line of the fall equinox (the equinox that lies, in the ancient system, at the juncture point between the sign of Virgo and the sign of Libra):
This would be the point marked by the red "X" on the right-hand side of the above zodiac wheel, which (for observers in the northern hemisphere) is the equinox at which the days begin to be shorter than the nights, the equinox which marks the point of descent into the nether regions -- on the way to the very Pit of Hell at the winter solstice at the bottom of the wheel.
I would argue that the reason all of these "trickster-gods" are clustered around this part of the sky is that this juncture was mythologically portrayed as the very "crossing point" or "boundary" at which the soul (metaphorically speaking) plunges into incarnation (the ancient myth-systems allegorized this point on the wheel as the point of descent from the realm of the spiritual into the realm of the material and the incarnate -- see the discussions here and here for more on that concept).
This boundary is critical to the trickster-god, because it is at this juncture (in the mythological system of using the majestic motions of the sky as a sort of Montessori teaching-aid to convey profound and abstract truths) that consciousness is robed in a physical body (made up, as Jon Rappoport so memorably told us, of "particles, particles, particles, particles, particles, particles"). It is thus at this very point (and during the incarnate life which follows the point of incarnation, when we toil through the "underworld" of this human existence in a body) that we are most vulnerable to being tricked into believing that the structures themselves are real and insurmountable! (By the way, as an important aside, I do not believe that boundaries are inherently bad or evil: boundaries can actually enhance creativity, as discussed in this previous post. The boundaries on a tennis court, for example, give the structure that enables the players to display their skills and their "artistry." When boundaries are agreed-upon as a positive enhancement of human liberty and creativity and freedom, then they can serve a very positive purpose. But, when artificial boundaries are created to limit human freedom, and when these artificial limiting boundaries take on an air of "reality" and insurmountability, then they are harmful).
But they are not ultimately real, and they are not ultimately insurmountable! This is the universal message of the trickster-god (who will go to great lengths to try to convey this message to us, subverting the apparently rigid "order" of the universe in whatever way he needs to in order to get his point through our thick skulls).
Mainly, he will get this point across using jokes, ridicule, the ridiculous -- just like the clowns of Shakespeare are wont to do.
And here we see another important reason why the trickster-god comes from this particular point in the zodiac wheel (the point of incarnation): because incarnation itself, in many ways, is something of a gigantic joke that is played upon us! As Jon Rappoport so powerfully put it in the portion of his talk cited first above, "what we're really looking at is a roomful of non-material beings inhabiting bodies."
That's funny! That's a situation that is just fraught with all kinds of potential comedy.
And, although he was addressing the roomful of non-material beings inhabiting bodies that happened to be physically there and listening to his talk at the moment, he could have just as easily said: "what we're really looking at is a world full of non-material beings inhabiting bodies."
And to return for just a moment to the symbology of Hermes discussed briefly above, we see that Hermes of course is the bearer of the caduceus, that staff up which run the intertwined serpents, which has become the symbol of medicine (the treatment of the human body). If he, like the other trickster-gods, is associated with the point of incarnation (the point where all the non-material beings get their bodies to inhabit for a time), then the caduceus (symbol of the profession that treats those inhabited bodies) would be the perfect symbol for Hermes.
But that's not all, because of course it has been pointed out since the era of the modern model for the DNA molecule that the double-helix structure of this information-carrying self-replicating molecule resembles nothing in the world of symbol so much as it resembles the caduceus of Hermes. We could almost say that the wand carried by Hermes represents the DNA by which the trickster-god reminds us of our incarnate state -- and at the same time reminds us that this body (this product of DNA) is not all that we are, that even though it does limit us in certain ways it does not ultimately define us -- and that we can and must transcend those limits, and that in fact we will.
What a message!
(And, of course, Hermes is after all the divine messenger).
Jon Rappoport has done humanity a tremendous service by framing this message so powerfully, and by bringing to bear every metaphor and every theatrical technique he can muster to convey this message to our hypnotized minds. It is a message that we all need to be reminded of, again and again (the ancient mythographers knew this, and told us we have amnesia, in no uncertain terms). If you have access to the video stream from the Secret Space Program conference, I would suggest you watch his talk several times, once every few days or every week, so that you remember it and so that it can penetrate our natural "defense mechanisms" that want to push this message out of sight and out of mind. If his talk is put up on any public video forums, I would suggest you do the same thing -- watch it again and again, at regular intervals.
Finally, Jon Rappoport has been articulating this very same message in several of his blog posts on his website since the conference (and some of those leading up to the conference). Some of these include "The Church of Progammed Perception," "And God appeared on a mountain; or maybe it was an actor," and "Beyond all structures" (in this one he discusses the role of Hermes).
I can personally say that his message has greatly sharpened my own understanding of the concept I am trying to articulate as the holographic and the shamanic (or "shamanic-holographic"). The fact that he has done it using the trickster-god reinforces my conviction that the ancient sacred scriptures of the world were a legacy to humanity to promote "consciousness," the awareness that the universe is in a very real sense "holographic" and made up of vibrations, and that we can and must transcend those boundaries (the "shamanic"). The ancient sacred scriptures were meant to point the way to human freedom.
But somewhere along the way they were subverted by people who knew their message, and how to use their knowledge of the shamanic and the holographic to create artificial constructs for others, artificial realities, that did the exact opposite of what the scriptures were originally intended to do. To enslave rather than to liberate. The fact that Jon Rappoport sees the deliberate creation of an enslaving artificial reality as the root of the problems we face today reinforces the conclusions that I have also reached, conclusions which involve history going back at least to the early Roman Empire and the creation of the Flavian dynasty. And, if those conclusions about history are correct, we should expect different analysts to arrive at them from all kinds of different avenues of investigation.
Thank you, Jon Rappoport, for your courageous pursuit of the truth for decades as an investigative reporter, for your ongoing investigations and articles, and for your clarity in articulating the message we all need to hear: that imagination creates reality, and that the antidote and solution to those who want to use their imagination to enslave is this -- for people, en masse, to become artists:
But if people, en masse, began to say: “Oh! Oh – I see: you guys are artists, right? You’re artists, and you’ve got your own museum and your own theater, and you’re making reality because you think that’s what I want! You think you can sell me your infomercial about the cosmos! I get it! No thanks. Not interested.”
“Why? Ultimately, because I’m making up my own. Yeah, I’m making up my own. I don’t need yours. Yeah, it’s pretty impressive – I’d like to take the tour, I’ll give you a buck, whatever, you know . . . does lunch come with that? You have a ticket I can have? You know? But as far as enrolling? And becoming a . . .? Nahhh. Because, come into my studio – you see what I’m painting here? Come into my office – you see what I’m building here? Come into my . . . whatever, my pasture, you see what I’m creating here? Come into my world – you see what I’m creating here? This is far more interesting to me than what you’re making for everybody.”
[Jon Rappoport, Mind Control, the Space Program, and the Secret Theater of Reality, June 29, 2014, Secret Space Program and Breakaway Civilizations Conference, San Mateo, California. Quotation begins at 1:07:38].
