Atlas and Hercules

Atlas and Hercules

image: Atlas bringing the golden apples to Heracles, who is temporarily holding up the sky, from the Temple to Zeus at Olympia, built between 472 BC and 456 BC. Wikimedia commons (link).

The Undying Stars presents evidence that the ancient mythologies of cultures around the globe are all built upon "star myths" which follow a common system of celestial allegory, and that the original intended purpose of all these star myths was to convey a shamanic-holographic vision of our universe and mankind's place within it: a liberating vision which invites us to break through artificial barriers, and to reach into the "seed realm" to bring back information and to effect transformations that cannot be achieved any other way.

Previous posts have provided detailed examinations of specific myths from around the world -- including the stories found within the scriptures which made their way into what are often called the Old and New Testaments -- in order to demonstrate that the evidence supporting the above assertion is so prodigiously vast as to be almost irrefutable.  

This previous post provides a lengthy list, with links, to more than twenty such detailed examinations of star myths from around the world, with clear ties between the details from the myth or story and the characteristics of the constellation or constellations that the story is allegorizing into myth.  

Several previous posts discuss the reason that the ancient sages who gave these myths to humanity chose to use the motions of the celestial realm in order to convey profound and otherwise difficult-to-grasp truths (see for instance: "Wax on, wax off," "Like a finger, pointing a way to the moon . . ." and "Montessori and 'thinging'").

The ancient myths of the world provide an inexhaustible supply of additional examples of the heavenly and celestial foundation of nearly every ancient scripture and sacred story. One memorable Greek myth worthy of explication to further illustrate the undeniable stellar basis of the ancient sacred corpus comes from the Twelve Labors of Heracles (Roman Hercules): the mission to retrieve the golden apples of the Hesperides (the Eleventh Labor of Heracles).

The Greek scholar Apollodorus of Athens (born around 180 BC and lived until some time after 120 BC) gives us a good version to examine, which can be found in its entirety online here, as translated by James George Frazer (1921). Below is an extended quotation of some of the pertinent details of the Eleventh Labor, which actually involved numerous other encounters by Heracles with other beings and demigods along the way (not all of which will be examined, although each could provide rich material for study and celestial unraveling). Since Frazer chooses to use the Roman form of the hero's name, we too will refer to him as Hercules for the rest of this particular discussion:

When the labours had been performed in eight years and a month, Eurystheus ordered Hercules, as an eleventh labour, to fetch golden apples from the Hesperides, for he did not acknowledge the labour of the cattle of Augeas nor that of the hydra. These apples were not, as some have said, in Libya, but on Atlas among the Hyperboreans. They were presented to Zeus after his marriage with Hera, and guarded by an immortal dragon with a hundred heads, offspring of Typhon and Echidna, which spoke with many divers sorts of voices. With it the Hepserides also were on guard, to wit, Aegle, Erythia, Hesperia, and Arethusa. [. . .][Various adventures ensue, primarily with Heracles defeating different sons of Poseidon][. . .] 
And traversing Asia he put in to Thermydrae, the harbor of the Lindians. And having loosed one of the bullocks from the cart of a cowherd, he sacrificed it and feasted. But the cowherd, unable to protect himself, stood on a certain mountain and cursed. Wherefore to this day, when they sacrifice to Hercules, they do it with curses.
And passing by Arabia he slew Emathion, son of Tithonius, and journeying through Libya to the outer sea he received the goblet from the Sun. And having crossed to the opposite mainland he shot on the Caucasus the eagle, offspring of Echidna and Typhon, that was devouring the liver of Prometheus, and he released Prometheus, after choosing for himself the bond of olive, and to Zeus he presented Chiron, who, though immortal, consented to die in his stead.
Now Prometheus had told Hercules not to go himself after the apples but to send Atlas, first relieving him of the burden of the sphere; so when he was come to Atlas in the land of the Hyperboreans, he took the advice and relieved Atlas. But when Atlas had received three apples from the Hesperides, he came to Hercules, and not wishing to support the sphere he said that he would himself carry the apples to Eurystheus, and bade Hercules hold up the sky in his stead. Hercules promised to do so, but succeeded by craft in putting it on Atlas instead. For at the advice of Prometheus he begged Atlas to hold up the sky till he should put a pad on his head. When Atlas heard that, he laid the apples down on the ground and took the sphere from Hercules. And so Hercules picked up the apples and departed. But some say that he did not get them from Atlas, but that he plucked the apples himself after killing the guardian snake. And having brought the apples he gave them to Eurystheus. But he, on receiving them, bestowed them on Hercules, from whom Athena got them and conveyed them back again; for it was not lawful that they should be laid down anywhere.

This story is full of fascinating detail, as well as a certain amount of humor. First, it is fascinating to note that the story involves plucking fruit from a tree . . . plucking fruit from a tree . . . now where have we heard something about that before . . . ? (It sounds familiar somehow). 

Prometheus warns Hercules that it is somehow dangerous (possibly fatal) for Hercules to pluck the apples himself (this also seems vaguely familiar for some reason . . . plucking fruit might cause one to "surely die" . . . hmmm). There is also a guardian serpent -- in this case, a dragon -- which again seems to be something I remember from another myth about fatal fruit.

Perhaps the most memorable aspect of this particular myth-sequence is the battle of wits between Hercules and Atlas. Atlas was the Titan condemned for eternity to uphold the entire sphere of the sky upon his shoulders. This was a punishment for having sided against the Olympians in the primordial battle between the Titans and the new gods. 

Hercules gets himself into a tight spot when he agrees to hold up the sky while Atlas retrieves the dangerous apples: when Atlas returns, the Titan decides he kind of enjoys his newfound freedom, and announces to Hercules that the hero seems to be doing such a good job that Atlas will be taking a permanent vacation and leaving the task of holding up the sky to Hercules from now on.

Hercules slyly agrees (in the version from Apollodorus cited above), but asks for a moment in order to cut a pad for his shoulders before he gets down to the task of supporting the sphere for the rest of eternity. Atlas agrees, and relieves Hercules for a moment, at which point the hero takes the apples and departs, leaving the hapless Atlas back where he began, supporting the sky. 

In some versions (at least in the wonderfully-illustrated version of the Labors of Hercules presented in the Sullivan Programmed Reading workbooks I had the pleasure of reading in elementary school during the 1970s), Hercules actually prepares to shoulder the sky again after cutting the pads for his shoulders, before Athena helpfully reminds the hero not to fall for his own trick, and advises him not to take the burden of the heavens back from Atlas now that he has the Titan back where he belongs.

In footnote number three from Frazer's 1921 translation, we see the kind of analysis found among conventional scholars, who resolutely refuse to interpret the ancient myths of the world as celestial allegory. There, we read some scholarly discussion as to where on earth these gardens of the Hesperides might be located -- along with some consternation that Apollodorus seems to have located them in "the far north" rather than in the "far west" as the name "Hesperides" would seem to imply (the word has connections to the evening star or Venus when appearing in the west, rather than when appearing in the morning in the east). 

The details of the story, however, make it clear that we are dealing again with celestial allegory. The Titan who is holding up the vault of the sky in this case is none other than the hulking constellation of Boötes -- a constellation whose form is fairly close to the North Celestial Pole as well as to the Big Dipper which circles it. The fact that the constellation of Hercules is very close to Boötes (and is also located close to the North Celestial Pole around which the entire heavens revolve) and that Hercules in the story temporarily takes over the task of supporting the sky-sphere from Atlas should be enough to identify the two main actors in the myth with these two northern constellations.

The diagram below, a screenshot from the delightful browser-based Neave Planetarium program created by programmer-developer Paul Neave, shows the two constellations in relationship to one another:

The above diagram includes my own addition of bold yellow lines to indicate the outlines of the constellations as imagined by the indispensable H.A. Rey; to see the diagrams as they appear on the Neave Planetarium app if you wish to run it yourself, the screenshot below shows the same section of sky, but removes my added yellow outlines:

Note that the myth as presented by Apollodorus contains several clues which aid in the conclusion that we are dealing with the northern section of sky around which the entire celestial sphere revolves. First, of course, is the very nature of the punishment of Atlas: he is condemned to hold up what Apollodorus refers to as "the sphere" and "the sky." The best explanation for this punishment is that Atlas must be holding up the inside of the celestial sphere -- he is holding up the dome of the sky that we see when we look up into the heavens at night, a dome which revolves around a central point at the north celestial pole. Thus, he must be a constellation fairly close to the north celestial pole, and Böotes certainly qualifies.

Secondly, we note that the apples in this myth are guarded by a dragon -- and there is clearly a dragon which winds its way around the north celestial pole, in the form of the constellation Draco, the Dragon. The diagram below includes the north celestial pole, and the sinuous form of Draco:

I have only added the outline to Hercules in the above image: the outlines of Draco, the Big Dipper, and the Little Dipper are easy enough to see using the outlines included in the Neave Planetarium online app.

There is some reason to believe that the "tree" from which the Titan plucks the apples must be the invisible axis of the sky itself, the central "pole" around which the entire heavens turn. I present arguments in my first book, The Mathisen Corollary, that ancient myth and sacred tradition envisioned this central axis as a tall tree, which in many myths (such as the Gilgamesh epic) is cut down or otherwise unhinged to begin the motion of precession. Other evidence for this identification is presented in Hamlet's Mill.

Based upon this reading of the celestial aspects of the myth, it is possible that the golden apples themselves can be identified with the circlet of stars that make up the Corona Borealis, or Northern Crown. This constellation, allegorized in other myths as a necklace of jewels, can be seen to be located directly between the constellations of Hercules and Boötes in the first diagrams shown above. The stars of the Northern Crown certainly sparkle like golden jewels, and other myths make it clear that these golden apples were coveted by the goddesses, and we can see in the text of the myth as described by Apollodorus that these apples somehow originated from Hera but as a gift that was given away -- just as the stars of the Northern Crown are now located apart from the form of the constellation Virgo, located below Boötes.

Other details in the myth as related by Apollodorus include the fact that the apples are found among the Hyperboreans (a word which means "far north" or "above north"), as well as the fact that in the supplemental adventures of Hercules, he is described as encountering a "cowherd" (the constellation Boötes is known as the Herdsman) who drives a "cart" or wagon (the Big Dipper was often described in myth as a wagon, a cart, or a "wain," as well as being allegorized in other myth as a plow). It was, in fact, almost certainly the billy-goat cart of Thor, who is associated with Jupiter (note that Thor's-day and Jove's-day are the same day: our modern Thursday), and remember that in the myth above as described by Apollodorus we have Hera giving the apples as a gift to Zeus (who is Jove and Jupiter).

When Hercules sacrifices one of the oxen from this cart, the Herdsman can only curse -- and we have seen that in myths around the world, the relationship between Boötes and his cart is somehow associated with off-color speech or antics (see the discussion of the lewd dance of Uzume in the Japanese myth of Amaterasu, or the behavior of Loki when he is trying to coax a smile out of the jotun maiden Skade, both of which are described in this previous post).

The outlines of both the constellation Boötes and the constellation Hercules can be envisioned as large men crouching down to support the burden of the very peak of the vault of heaven (located at the north celestial pole, which is located above both of their backs). The ancient art depicting the mighty Titan Atlas bending down to support the ponderous burden of the entire sphere often depicts him as having one knee out forward, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the shape of Böotes, who also has a prominent crooked knee on his one leg. Below is an image of the famous "Farnese Atlas," with an outline of Böotes for comparison:

Here is a link to the original image on Wikimedia commons. Is it possible that the sculptors of such ancient statuary envisioned the outline that we normally think of as the head of Böotes as the globe in this case (when Boötes is playing the role of the Titan Atlas, that is)?  The general shape of the outline seems to suggest that the ancients did understand the correlation of Atlas with Boötes, particularly as the right (rear) leg of the statue would correspond to the "pointed" side on the left of the constellation outline, while the raised left-leg of the statue (on the right side as we look at Atlas) corresponds to the bent leg of the constellation. The illustration below shows how the general shape does seem to correlate to some degree:

Note as an intriguing aside that the Farnese Globe in the second-century AD sculpture shown above is an important clue to the level of ancient astronomical knowledge, as discussed in this previous post from 2012.

Yet further support for the identification of Atlas with Boötes comes from the fact that he is clearly described as having daughters, the Hesperides, whose names are given by Apollodorus as Aegle, Erythia, Hesperia, and Arethusa. While the image below is from a modern-era piece of artwork from the well-known trailblazing (and occasionally scandal-generating) artist John Singer Sargent (1856 - 1925), it incorporates ancient conventions regarding the depiction of Atlas. His 1925 depiction of the Hesperides as reclining beneath the burdened figure of their father the Titan is significant, in that the constellation Virgo is located in just such a recumbent pose in relationship to Boötes:

image: John Singer Sargent, Atlas and the Hesperides

(1925). Wikimedia commons (link).

Notice that the artist has depicted Atlas with one arm extended, and the hand of that single extended arm in a rather curious (albeit graceful) upturned angle -- exactly as if he were aware of the correspondence between Boötes and Atlas, and imagining the "pipe" of the constellation Bö

otes as the single extended arm of the crouching Atlas in his painting.

Below is the now-familiar diagram of Boötes in relationship to Virgo which has been featured in several previous posts including this one and this one, reproduced here in order to show that Virgo in the sky reclines beneath the hulking form of Boötes in exactly the same way that John Singer Sargent has depicted his Hesperides as reclining beneath the burdened form of his Atlas:

All of these correspondences, plus the fact that the constellation Hercules itself is located immediately adjacent to Boötes, makes it fairly clear that this is the section of the celestial sphere which is being allegorized in the star myth of Hercules retrieving the golden apples from the Hesperides, with the assistance of the Titan Atlas.

Having established this, what does it all mean? Does identifying the players of the famous Eleventh Labor of Hercules as constellations in our night sky (constellations you can go identify this very night) somehow "rob" the myth of its grandeur, its human drama, and its air of reverence for the things of the gods (including the apples which cannot be picked by human hands and which, we are told at the end of the account, cannot remain in the world of men and women but must be taken back to the world of the gods)?

While some might see it that way, I would argue the opposite: like the other myths we have examined  such as the stealing of the mead of poetry from Gunnlod or the stealing of fire from the Old Man in the tipi (and like the myth of Adam and Eve plucking the forbidden fruit from the tree in the Genesis account which shares so many elements with this labor of Hercules), there are aspects of what we could call "the shamanic" in this myth. The myth involves obtaining something from the world of the gods, of "crossing over" into the divine realm and borrowing something that is "not of this earth," something that elevates Hercules at least for a time into the numinous world of the primordial powers and the gods. He takes the place of Atlas, supporting with his own human back the very axis of the heavens (and in doing so uniting the microcosm and the macrocosm, as well as "ascending" for a time to the very realm of the stars).

It is a story of transcending boundaries -- and the fact that the mission is ultimately accomplished by means of trickery and the breaking of his word (Hercules lies to Atlas when he asks him to shoulder the sky for just a few more minutes), which is a common element in the myths surrounding the shamanic figure of Odin in the Norse pantheon, recalls the importance of the "trickster-god" found in almost every ancient myth-system, whose absolutely crucial importance is articulated by Jon Rappoport in many of his writings and speeches.

I would argue that the Eleventh Labor of Hercules conveys the message of the importance of "transcending realities" and of creating "new realities," and that seeing the myth's undeniable celestial foundation enables us to grasp this higher and deeper message, hidden in the delightful tale.

Commodus and Marcus Aurelius

Commodus and Marcus Aurelius

image: Marcus Aurelius (AD 121 - AD 180), Emperor from AD 161 - AD 180. Wikimedia commons (link).

The movie Gladiator (2000), starring Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix, presents the transition from the rule of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius to the rule of his son Commodus as a crucial turning point in the history of the empire.

In the film, Marcus Aurelius recognizes the pathological twist in his son's character and decides he will not appoint Commodus as his successor, instead desiring to return Rome to a republic, and appointing the virtuous Maximus to act as "protector" during the transition. As fans of the movie know, Commodus was none too pleased with this arrangement and took matters into his own hands, eliminating both his father and eventually Maximus as well, and ascending to the throne to become one of Rome's most megalomaniacal rulers.

While the above plot takes considerable historical license and inserts an entire series of fictional characters and events surrounding the memorable but entirely imaginary general-turned-gladiator, Maximus, the transition between Marcus Aurelius and Commodus was in fact an enormous turning point in world history, and one that is worthy of careful study and consideration.

According to the theory put forward by Flavio Barbiero in his 2010 book, The Secret Society of Moses, the transition from Marcus Aurelius to Commodus was critical in that Commodus was the first emperor who was an initiate into the secret society of Sol Invictus Mithras. As explained in my previous post entitled "Ten reasons to suspect a close connection between ancient Roman Mithraism and ancient Roman Christianity," and articulated at greater length by Flavio Barbiero in an online article entitled "Mithras and Jesus: Two sides of the same coin," there is evidence to support the thesis that the secret society of Sol Invictus Mithras was the primary vehicle through which the priestly families from Judea took over the levers of control of the entire Roman Empire.

Judea and Jerusalem fell to the Roman legions led by Vespasian and his son Titus in AD 70. Vespasian and Titus brought back certain members of the leading priestly families from Judea to Rome -- including the crucially important historical personage of Josephus. Once in Rome, according to the thesis expounded by Flavio Barbiero and backed up by extensive historical evidence (starting with the writings of Josephus himself), these priestly families began a secret campaign to gain control of the levers of power, beginning with the Praetorian Guard and then extending steadily to the centers of commerce, the bureaucracy of the empire, and of course the Roman army itself (especially the officer corps).

In order to accomplish this takeover, these families used the twin vehicles of Mithraism and literalist, hierarchical, ecclesiastical Christianity (which they created, and which slowly took over from and supplanted the earlier gnostic and esoteric forms of Christianity that had existed prior to the campaign of Vespasian and Titus and their destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem). 

If that seems difficult to believe, remember that these families were extremely experienced at running a system which we could call a system of reality creation. Previous posts have explored the likelihood that the ancient esoteric wisdom which forms the foundation of all the world's ancient sacred traditions articulated a vision of our universe as one that is shaped at least in part by human consciousness, and taught that through consciousness we can actually create realities. As this previous post articulates, I believe there is evidence that this wisdom was intended for (and anciently used for) benevolent purposes, but it can also be used for purposes of control, domination, and the general suppression of human consciousness in others.

So, if the families that came to Rome after the fall of Jerusalem were experts in "reality creation," were they more disposed to use that knowledge for the more benevolent purposes of enhancing human consciousness and freedom, or for the more oppressive purposes of control and domination?

Well, there is clear evidence which demonstrates that most repositories of the ancient wisdom were destroyed after the arrival of these families in Rome, and in fact after the time that Sol Invictus Mithras began appointing emperors and thus demonstrating that it had gained control of the levers of power of the Roman Empire. Examples of this destruction of the esoteric ancient wisdom include the destruction and suppression of gnostic and esoteric texts within the Roman Empire itself (see discussions here and here and here), as well as the burning or seizing of ancient texts stored at the library of Alexandria. It also includes the shuttering of the sites that carried on the various mystery cults within the borders of the Roman Empire, which (as I explain in The Undying Stars) also appear to have preserved aspects of the ancient knowledge that the new order set about to suppress or eliminate (for a discussion of one of the most important of these ancient mystery cults, see this previous post exploring the Eleusinian Mysteries).

Based on the fact that these suppressions all took place within the Roman Empire after the time that Sol Invictus began appointing emperors, and especially after Constantine made literalist Christianity the official religion of the empire, it is safe to say that those expert practitioners of reality creation who took over the Roman Empire were generally more interested in the "control and domination" side of the art.

In his book, Flavio Barbiero points out that the use of the two-pronged strategy which included both the public-facing literalist-Christian vehicle and the private, exclusive, and extremely secret society of Sol Invictus Mithras was critical to the success of the takeover. The old Roman families, especially those who controlled the Senate of Rome until the Senate was slowly infiltrated by equestrian-class newcomers, never actually realized that the leaders at the top of Sol Invictus were the ones calling the shots. The representatives of the old Roman families generally saw Christianity as the threat, and tried to attack it instead -- thus the spread of Christianity served as the perfect distraction or decoy to misdirect their attention and enable the secret society of Sol Invictus to move its pieces across the chessboard until it was able to emplace emperors at will.

At first, the leaders of Sol Invictus used emperors who were from the old Roman families but had been initiated into the Sol Invictus cult (not knowing that they were only shown the "lower-level" activities of the secret society, and were not invited to the high-level inner-circle meetings where the real strategy was enacted). However, at some point, Sol Invictus had enough power (backed up by their control of the Praetorian Guard) to appoint descendants of their own priestly families to the office of emperor. 

According to Flavio Barbiero's research, the first emperor to be a member of Sol Invictus was none other than Commodus, who took the throne in AD 177, just over one hundred years after the fall of Jerusalem and the arrival of Josephus and the other members of the priestly families in Rome. 

The fact that Commodus was closely associated with Sol Invictus is clear from several historical details. For one, he took the name "Invictus," and when he renamed the months of the year after his own several names and appellations (an example of his egomania which caused tremendous resentment among the traditional Roman families), he chose to name one of the months "Invictus." Another piece of evidence can be seen in the coin below (source), which has the image of Commodus on one side and the image of a solar god or figure on the obverse side, with legs crossed and leaning against a pillar:

We have already examined at some length in previous posts the fact that crossed legs is a form of metaphorical solar symbology which is extremely characteristic of the iconography found in Mithraic meeting-places (mithraea). The work of Mithraic scholar David Ulansey clearly establishes that the crossed legs refers specifically to the sun's crossing of the celestial equator, which takes place twice a year at equinox. I have also argued in previous discussions that there is extensive evidence to conclude that the pillar refers to the line running from the winter solstice to the summer solstice (see here, here, and here, for example). 

In addition to this, there are other ancient sources which indicate that Commodus was affiliated with Sol Invictus Mithras. Marcus Aurelius, on the other hand, seems to have sensed the rising threat to the ancient traditions and belief systems and to have attempted to stem the tide, thus placing his reign and that of his son on two different sides of the crucial power struggle over the future of the western world.

Flavio Barbiero points out that there is some evidence that Marcus Aurelius actively persecuted Christianity to some degree (185). Other scholars argue that it is not entirely certain to what degree Marcus Aurelius actively encouraged the persecution of Christians that took place under his reign (although it is hard to explain how that could have gone on against his will or without his knowledge). Thus, it is quite possible that Marcus Aurelius, who was himself a Stoic and an important philosopher in his own right, perceived that dangerous forces were at work to supplant the old ways, and incorrectly believed that Christianity was the primary threat and targeted its adherents, not perceiving that Sol Invictus was the more important nerve center that was directing the long-term campaign.

With the passing of Marcus Aurelius and the accession to the throne by Commodus, there was a definitive shift in power. Flavio Barbiero says that "the imperial office from Commodus onward" was "conferred almost exclusively on members of the Sol Invictus organization, independent of the rank they held in the organization and whether or not they belonged to whatever branch of the priestly family" (209).

Marcus Aurelius is often included in the category of the "five good emperors" (along with Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius). In his massive 1,500,000-word magnum opus The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon (1737 - 1794) says of the events that took place after the reign of Antoninus Pius (the end of whose reign he saw as the beginning of the long decline and ultimate fall of the empire), it was "a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth" (page 11 of this version). 

How right he was, especially on that second point about it being "still felt by the nations of the earth."

Of the reign of Commodus, Flavio Barbiero writes:

On the death of Marcus Aurelius, probably the most zealous and efficient persecutor of Christianity of the emperors who succeeded Nero, the Empire passed to his son Commodus, who was initiated into the Mithraic organization. For more efficient influence over Commodus, he was given a Christian concubine, Marcia, who, for the entire duration of his reign (AD 180 - 192), had the prerogatives and powers of an empress. Commodus has gone down in history as one of the most ferocious and extravagant of the Roman emperors; he sent thousands of people to their deaths for the sheer pleasure of it. Among these people, however, there was not a single Christian, because he put an end to the persecutions of his father and showed favor to Christianity in every way.
Commodus was certainly not of priestly lineage, and his unpredictability made him difficult to maneuver for the Mithraic organization, which eventually decided to eliminate him. [. . .] Marcia was the instrument of his elimination, and was helped by Quintus Aemilius Laetus, prefect of the Praetorian Guard, which, by then, was completely under the control of Sol Invictus. 186-187.

Note that Laetus appears in the 2000 movie Gladiator, and plays a rather important role throughout the film (he is clearly no fan of Commodus).

The fact that Commodus, a member of Sol Invictus, had as his favorite concubine (who was given the powers and prerogatives of an empress) a woman who was a known Christian should be seen as yet another piece of evidence (in addition to those listed here and the many others listed in the works of Flavio Barbiero) that Christianity and Mithraism were not arch-rival religions the way they are often portrayed in conventional scholarship.

The fact that the Praetorian Guard was perfectly capable of removing emperors by assassination is also demonstrated from the above passage, as it is also demonstrated by the numerous emperors after Commodus who reigned for only a few weeks or months before being assassinated themselves.

The graphic below shows the majority of the emperors from Vespasian to Constantine, with important milestones indicated in highlighted-yellow type. Emperors who reigned for very short periods of time are depicted in smaller images than those who reigned for longer. Dates are indicated in red lettering and all of them are AD. The images are for the most part those found on this Wikipedia page. Not all dates are listed, but enough are listed to give a general idea of the timeline. Years listed are for the year the emperor began to reign:

From the above chart, we can see that (if the analysis of Flavio Barbiero is correct, and I believe that it is) the priestly families worked towards the ability to get an initiate of Sol Invictus into the imperial office from their arrival in Rome around AD 70, and finally succeeded with the accession to the throne by Commodus in AD 177. After his reign (and later assassination), there were two emperors removed in quick succession, followed by several more emperors closely affiliated with Sol Invictus starting with Septimius Severus in AD 193: this indicates that Sol Invictus continued to decide who would become emperor (and whether that emperor would stay the emperor) from Commodus onwards (there was only one big setback to their plans, during the period of the tetrarchy, discussed briefly below).

This excellent web page from ancient coin collector Bill Welch shows Roman coins with clear Sol Invictus imagery beginning most especially with coins minted during the reign of Septimius Severus. 

Flavio Barbiero discusses the evidence that one of the primary missions assigned to the emperor Septimius Severus and his immediate successors was the drastic reduction of the power of the old senatorial families of Italic stock, and the gradual infiltration into the Senate of newly-wealthy equestrians (who generally came from the bureaucratic offices of the empire, and from the military)(187 and following).

Also notable among the emperors in the group that begins with Septimius Severus is the emperor Elagabulus, of whom Flavio Barbiero finds evidence suggesting that he may have been the first emperor to be descended from one of the priestly family lines.

Following another internecine period of rapidly-assassinated and replaced emperors, Gordian III emerged to reign from AD 238 - AD 244, followed in AD 244 by Philip I (also known as "Philip the Arab"), the first openly Christian emperor. It should be noted that emperors could be both Christian and members of Sol Invictus all the way up until after the time of Constantine.

Also noteworthy, especially in light of the huge number of emperors who only lasted for a period of weeks or months, is this quotation from Flavio Barbiero: "It is quite likely that the heads of the branches of the priestly family, who monopolized the higher levels of the Mithraic organization, were reluctant to take on the office themselves and preferred to govern through expendable pawns affiliated at the first levels -- and were ready to eliminate them as soon as they deviated from their instructions or disappointed expectations" (197).

Finally, Flavio Barbiero explains that Diocletian almost certainly devised the unwieldy mechanism of the "tetrarchy" in order to protect himself from the threat of rapid assassination by the Sol Invictus powerbrokers who had allowed him to become emperor (something that happened to many emperors who stepped out of line, including many of those who immediately preceded Diocletian). As a result of Diocletian's move, according to Barbiero, the leaders of Sol Invictus decided to make Christianity the official religion of Rome and to move their nerve center from the hidden organization of Mithraism to the more-open organization of the Christian church, which took place during the reign of Constantine (who reigned from AD 313, when he gained undisputed control over the empire after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, until his death in AD 337). 

In order to facilitate that control, they also had Constantine move the seat of the imperial office out of Rome and over to the new city of Constantinople.

Clearly, there is historical evidence which strongly supports Barbiero's thesis. If he is correct, the transition of power between Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, was one of the turning points in human history. It is also clear that Commodus went off in quite a different direction than that of his father -- Marcus Aurelius working as best he saw how to try to stave off the threat that was working to take over the empire from within, while Commodus actually signed up for the program that was maneuvering that takeover.

I wonder if the makers of the film Gladiator (which was a joint British and American production; Flavio Barbiero provides evidence that the British Isles became an early and important stronghold of both the priestly families discussed above and the Sol Invictus Mithras organization) knew all of this when they chose to make a film about that critical transition that took place in AD 177 . . .

Zechariah Sitchin, Reality Creation, NASA announcements, and the "literal-alien" misinterpretation of ancient myth

Zechariah Sitchin, Reality Creation, NASA announcements, and the "literal-alien" misinterpretation of ancient myth

image: cuneiform tablet, Wikimedia commons (link).

I believe overwhelming evidence supports an astronomical and allegorical basis for nearly every myth from ancient cultures around the world. The myths describe the motions of the zodiac constellations, of other significant constellations near the zodiac band, and the motions of the sun, moon, and planets across the heavens (these heavenly bodies primarily move through the zodiac bands as well).

Previous blog posts have shown numerous examples of myths which first and foremost can be understood as relating directly to these heavenly phenomena. These include:

The list could go on and on (in fact, it does -- there are no doubt other posts which outline other "star-myths," and many more are discussed in detail in The Undying Stars  itself).

The point of the above list is to highlight the absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence which supports the understanding of virtually all ancient myth as primarily describing events in the heavens acted out by the constellations and planets -- and not as literal events, whether supernatural or extraterrestrial. 

If someone wants to argue that a myth which can clearly be shown to correspond to the motions of specific constellations is also describing a literal event that happened in earth history, then there would seem to be a pretty high hurdle to clear, given the superabundance of evidence just cited which argues that these myths were primarily describing the motions of heavenly bodies as viewed from earth. 

If someone wants to argue that a myth should be primarily interpreted literally and not metaphorically and astronomically, then that would seem to require an even higher burden of proof, especially if it can be shown that the myth appears to have a satisfactory metaphorical explanation.

I go into all of this because, in my most-recent interview (as pointed out in this previous post), discussion of the allegorical aspect of these "star-myths" was consistently avoided and the conversation was instead steered back to the question of whether these myths could not also have been describing literal events, and specifically whether these myths could not also have been describing ancient alien activity such as that alleged by Zechariah Sitchin.

This aspect of the interview was somewhat frustrating, in that my entire book centers on the importance of this universal system of celestial metaphor, what it means and what happened to our understanding of it. It also caught me somewhat off-guard. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to think more precisely about this particular question, because I would now say that even the assertion that the myths could "also be literal" must be qualified rather heavily, and treated with great caution.  

As I have said before (and asserted in my book on this subject), it is a possibility that some of these myths also reflect some history.  However, although it is certainly possible that some of these myths incorporate the names of historical figures (maybe), the actions in the myths can be shown to be describing the motions of celestial bodies. This is similar to the way that the plays of Shakespeare (whoever he or she was) incorporate the names and some of the outward trappings of historical figures, but the action in the plays serves a different purpose and is not intended to be taken as literal history.

And, while I was somewhat familiar with the work of Zechariah Sitchin, enough to know that I did not agree with his conclusions while at the same time admitting that anyone who tries to show that the conventional timeline of history has serious flaws is to that extent pointing out something that is true, I had not made a serious study of his work (primarily because I have found so much evidence that the ancient mythologies of the world are allegorical and esoteric that I did not need to see too much of his work to realize that it is taking a literal approach and ignoring the esoteric and allegorical nature of ancient myth).

Now, however, having thought more carefully about the corpus of Sitchin's work (as a result of that recent interview), I have reached the conclusion that his literalistic approach may be just as misleading as that forced upon the western world by the imposition of a rigidly literalistic Christianity during the centuries following AD 70. If the purpose of all the star-myths described above is to point humankind towards a shamanic view of the universe and of human existence (and I believe this can also be demonstrated quite conclusively, as discussed in The Undying Stars and as touched on in previous posts such as this one and this one), then believing that these exquisitely-crafted esoteric metaphors are all describing the arrival of ancient aliens on earth in spaceships (and their physical manipulation of the human race) may in fact keep you from seeing the liberating truths that those sacred stories were designed to convey, and will do it just as effectively as will believing that the stories are all about the earthly actions of historical literal figures such as Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Moses, or Jesus and twelve literal disciples.

In other words, in the immortal expression of Bruce Lee, the literalistic scriptural interpretation of Zechariah Sitchin is one more way to get you to "concentrate on the finger, and miss all that heavenly glory!"

In light of this, it is worth asking where the literal interpretations offered by Sitchin actually come from. In a 2010 Red Ice interview of ancient Near Eastern languages scholar Michael S. Heiser (a well-known critic of Zechariah Sitchin), recorded while Sitchin was still alive, Dr. Heiser gives several reasons to conclude that Sitchin's theoretical timeline of ancient human history did not come from the texts themselves. (Note: mention of Dr. Heiser's expertise-based analysis of Sitchin's theories is not intended to imply that he endorses or subscribes to any of my own theories presented above regarding the primarily esoteric nature of all ancient scripture: it appears from material on his own websites that he probably does not believe that the Bible is primarily esoteric).

That interview (like all archived interviews going back to the inception of Red Ice Radio) is available to Red Ice members, but for those who are not able to listen to it, here are some pertinent quotations:

  • "I think I should just be honest with people and point out, you know, what the problems are, and hopefully they'll decide on the basis of evidence not on emotion." 0:07:00, part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "There are some things where you could look at what Sitchin's doing and say, 'Well, you know, that's kind of an odd interpretation and no one else is really going to look at it that way.' But, there are a lot of things that the issue just goes beyond that, to Sitchin staking out positions and making claims, saying that the Sumerian tablets say this or that, when it's just not there, it just doesn't exist in any tablet. I'll give a few examples here. For instance there are a lot of references to the Annunaki: the Annunaki were an important sub-group in the Sumerian pantheon. But it's a complete fabrication to say that there are texts that describe the Annunaki coming from a place called Nibiru, and having Nibiru being a planet beyond Pluto that circulates through our solar system every 3,600 years. There isn't a single text, a single line of any text that says that." 0:09:20 part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "One of the things I'm trying to do is to get people to primary text material, so that they don't have to take my word for it: so they can check up on me, and in the process check up on Sitchin." 0:10:45 part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "So those are three examples of things where I say, 'He's just making it up.' It's not about interpretation, it's about whether these statements in the text actually exist. And I'm saying that they don't." 0:14:42 part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "There's quite a disconnect between what Sitchin is trying to say . . . you know, he has every right to say it. What he doesn't have a right to do, in my mind, is to say, 'Hey, it's in these tablets.'" 0:28:00 part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "He's essentially created an alternative mythology, and married it to an extraterrestrial idea." 0:07:11, part two/second hour of the interview.

Now, if what Zechariah Sitchin describes about ancient human history does not come from the ancient Sumerian texts which he claims form the basis for his (literal) interpretation of ancient myth, then where does it come from? It does not necessarily follow that what he is saying is necessarily wrong just because it does not come from the ancient scriptures -- maybe ancient human history did include alien contact (I have not concluded this myself, but I do not rule it out as a possibility). However, it is fairly clear from Dr. Heiser's arguments that Sitchin's purported literal histories are not found in the texts (nor do I believe that we would expect to find literal history there, since I believe the ancient myths can be conclusively shown to be about something other than literal history).

It is still possible that Sitchin is telling us information that comes from some source other than ancient scripture, of course. It could all just be something he made up deliberately, in order to deceive for some reason. It could all be something he truly believed, based on his own misinterpretation of texts which were intended to be allegorical and not literal. But it could also be information that he received from some tradition which preserved it from somewhere, or received it from somewhere. If so, however, he deceived his followers as to the source of his information, since in that case it came from somewhere other than the texts that he said he formed the source for his theories.

Michael Heiser also raises in his interview the disturbing possibility that some people could deliberately misinterpret ancient scriptures as describing literal alien activities in order to promote tyranny in the future based on a fabricated arrival or disclosure of an "alien presence." He does not accuse Sitchin of deliberately furthering such an agenda, but discusses with interviewer Henrik Palmgren the possibility that deliberate literal-alien-scriptural-misinterpretation could be used that way in the future by a group of "elites" who want to claim superiority either by virtue of being selected by the alien visitors as their representative ruling body, or by virtue of being genetically superior due to biological manipulation by the aliens themselves at some time in the past:

I'm actually gonna lay this out, how I think this could work. It actually can be a very comprehensive sort of alternative worldview that could make sense to anybody regardless of who they are and everybody can go away feeling like they were right -- feeling like their religious texts were real, feeling like their religious texts weren't just gibberish. So I really feel like the idea could be quite useful to completely altering, again, traditional worldviews, and propping up something in its place that would be a displacement of traditional religious beliefs. The thing that troubles me about that, is, at the same time -- and here's why I think it would appeal to globalist-elitists, if we want to use terms like that -- along with that idea comes the idea that "the gods" did select certain individuals, certain human lines -- bloodlines -- to rule. And that's what the globalist-elitist thinks of themselves. 0:42:00 part one/first hour of the interview.

This line of discussion is certainly noteworthy, and very chilling, as both Dr. Heiser and host Henrik Palmgren agree during the interview. They also point out news items from the time of the interview (2010) in which powerful religious or political institutions made very public statements regarding "extraterrestrials," should they ever be found. And, here in July 2014, we know that just last week,

NASA publicly declared that humanity will encounter alien life "within twenty years," and then went on to say that twenty years is probably a conservative estimate.

In light of all of this, it is useful to come back to what I strongly believe that these ancient esoteric myths are all about in the first place: they are all about telling us that the reality that we think we perceive is in many very real ways illusory and indeed holographic, and that we have the ability as poets, artists, and even shamans to transcend the illusory "realities" that are created for us and then to create our own (again, see the post discussing the powerful speech of Jon Rappoport last month). This message, I believe, was intended to promote human freedom and to promote human consciousness.

But, those who understand this esoteric message of the ancient mythologies have not always been on the side of human freedom or human consciousness -- quite the contrary, as it turns out. Some of those who understand it best have wanted to use it for their own advancement, while keeping it from everyone else (part III of The Undying Stars is all about this aspect of history).

Given the fact that he "created a reality" which has been "bought into" by a huge number of people, it is very possible that Zechariah Sitchin was in the service of this second category. I have not necessarily concluded that this was the case, but it is a possibility that one should at least entertain and investigate, especially since he promoted an interpretation of ancient scriptures (including those of the Old Testament) that is literalistic and thus obscures the shamanic esoteric message that I believe is actually at the core of ancient myth.

However, that is only one possibility. Sitchin could be entirely innocent of any such designs, even if (as I believe) his theories were mistaken. Even if he was completely innocent, I believe that the possibility that some evil actors could try to use a false "literal-alien" misinterpretation of ancient scriptures at some point in the future should be considered very carefully, and guarded against.

Some reflections on my recent Project Camelot interview, and the errors of Zechariah Sitchin

Some reflections on my recent Project Camelot interview, and the errors of Zechariah Sitchin

Having now re-listened to my recent interview on  Project Camelot, the thing that struck me the most about my interview is the fact that it seems to have devolved into a tug-of-war between my attempts to explain an esoteric theory, and the interviewer's desire to turn the conversation back to what I would classify as the literalistic.

The entire thrust of my theory centers around the following points: 

  • That the ancient scriptures from cultures around the world are esoteric, and that in fact they all follow a unified esoteric system of celestial allegory (some clear and examples of this system can be found in this previous blog post and in the posts linked therein, as well as in the first three chapters of my book, which are available online here).
  • That this ancient system of "star myths" can be shown to contain evidence of a view of the universe that includes the amazing concept that the material world which we inhabit is actually a sort of projection of information existing in a "hidden realm" (or "seed realm") -- a concept that the recent Lego Movie actually dramatizes in a very amusing way, and a concept which theoretical physicists in the twentieth century began to articulate as the "holographic universe" model in response to some of the evidence from what we now label "quantum physics."
  • That the ancient sacred traditions make it clear that it is not only possible for the human consciousness to cross over the boundary between these two realms (what we would today call the shamanic journey) but that it is in some ways essential (see for instance the quotation from Mircea Eliade in the previously-linked post discussing the Lego Movie, as well as posts such as this one and this one). This ability can be described in terms of breaking through the artificial boundaries of an "illusory reality" and of creating "new realities," as described most powerfully by Jon Rappoport in much of his work.
  • That this ancient wisdom appears to have been a legacy of some extremely advanced "predecessor civilization" about which we know very little and about which at this time we can know very little, as they left no written records but only incredibly intriguing monuments located at significant points all around our planet -- monuments which clearly suggest that they knew the size and shape of our spherical earth. While it is certainly possible that these monuments indicate contact with beings from other planets or star systems, it is by no means necessary to conclude that, nor have I to this day seen evidence which definitively points towards such a conclusion. 
  • This ancient shamanic wisdom appears to have been in full operation right up until the time of the creation of literalist Christianity, which rejected the esoteric nature of the scriptural texts and replaced them with a literalistic hermeneutic (including the most central doctrine of literalist Christianity, the incarnation of a literal Christ figure, as opposed to the esoteric understanding of a "Christ in you," the teaching of the divine spark incarnated in each man and woman which all the esoteric ancient myths can be shown to teach, discussed in previous posts such as this one and this one and this one). 
  • There is strong evidence that the imposition of literalist Christianity was accomplished by a specific set of historical circumstances involving the arrival among the highest circles of power in the Roman Empire of a group of people who understood about the shamanic "creation of reality" described above, and their subsequent takeover of that Roman Empire (through the twin vehicles of Mithraism and literalist Christianity). They then created the institutions of religious power and political power that would control western Europe right up to the present day . . . and would spread overseas to impact the rest of the world, with catastrophic results for many previously-shamanic cultures.  

Thus, the concept of the esoteric (and shamanic) nature of the ancient myths is absolutely central to my thesis. Unfortunately, the conversation was never allowed to delve into the esoteric, because although I tried to head towards the esoteric from my very first comments in the interview (referencing the "esoteric" nature of Montessori, which I believe to be a good example of the purpose of the esoteric technique), none of the esoteric subjects that I tried to raise, including examples which demonstrate that the Bible is composed of star-myth from first to last, which is not just a nice theory but can be shown to be absolutely incontestable or the fact that the undeniable connection between numerous ancient goddesses (including Ishtar) and lions strongly suggests that these myths are talking about the zodiac (where the constellation of Virgo follows the constellation of Leo) were explored with any follow-up questions or conversation.

Instead, the conversation was steered more than once towards whether or not I subscribed to the theories of Zechariah Sitchin, and (related to that) whether my esoteric approach has room for literal interpretations at the same time.

As I tried to explain during the interview and will explain a bit further below, I do not subscribe to the theories of Zechariah Sitchin, and the primary reason that I do not is that Zechariah Sitchin's hermeneutic is a literalistic hermeneutic, and I believe it is mistaken. He interprets the ancient scriptures (in this case, the myths of ancient Sumer and Babylon, but also the Old Testament scriptures which contain parallels to the myths of Sumer and Babylon) as describing literal history. Although the literal history that he believes the ancient myths (including those of the Bible) describe is a different history from that which most adherents to historic literalistic Christianity in its various permutations have taught down through the centuries since the takeover described above (a takeover which was essentially completed during the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine), his books nevertheless take the ancient myths to primarily describe actual ancient history.

He does not interpret the events described in those myths esoterically.

For example, on page 171 of his first book The Twelfth Planet (published in 1976), Sitchin writes  the following in his discussion of a famous passage in Genesis chapter 6 (I will put all of the passages from Sitchin's book in blue, so that the reader can clearly distinguish between his writing and my comments upon his writing):

the sons of the gods
saw the daughters of man, that they were good;
and they took them for wives,
of all which they chose.
The implications of these verses, and the parallels to the Sumerian tales of gods and their sons and grandsons, and of semidivine offspring resulting from cohabitation between gods and mortals, mount further as we continue to read the biblical verses:
The Nefilim were upon the Earth
in those days and thereafter too,
when the sons of the gods
cohabited with the daughters of the Adam,
and they bore children unto them.
They were the mighty ones of Eternity -- 
The People of the shem.
The above is not a traditional translation. For a long time, the expression "The Nefilim were upon the Earth" has been translated as "There were giants upon the earth"; but recent translators, recognizing the error, have simply resorted to leaving the Hebrew term Nefilim intact in the translation. The verse "The people of the shem," as one could expect, has been taken to mean "the people who have a name," and, thus, "the people of renown." But as we have already established, the term shem must be taken in its original meaning -- a rocket, a rocket ship.
What, then, does the term Nefilim mean? Stemming from the Semitic root NFL ("to be cast down"), it means exactly what it says: It means those who were cast down upon Earth!

Clearly, Sitchin in the above discussion is taking the passage to be a literal account of some beings who physically came from another planet to this planet. That this is Sitchin's interpretation is completely clear from the rest of that book, and the fourteen others he wrote. Later in the same book there is a chapter entitled "Landing on Earth," and details such as the following descriptions:

Based on complex technical data, as well as hints in Mesopotamian texts, it appears that the Nefilim adopted for their Earth missions the same approach NASA adopted for the Moon missions: When the principal spaceship neared the target planet (Earth), it went into orbit around that planet without actually landing. Instead, a smaller craft was released from the mother ship and performed the actual landing.
As difficult as accurate landings were, the departures from Earth must have been even trickier. The landing craft had to rejoin its mother ship, which then had to fire up its engines and accelerate to extremely high speeds, for it had to catch up with the Twelfth Planet, which by then was passing its perigee between Mars and Jupiter at its top orbital speed. 281-282.

Clearly, a credible demonstration that the myths of ancient Sumer and Babylon (as well as the accounts in Genesis) were primarily descriptions of the motions of the sun, moon and planets among the background of the zodiac stars (the sun, moon, and planets always move through the zodiac band, along a pathway known as the ecliptic) could be seen as very damaging to the literalistic interpretation of the myths that Sitchin is offering in the above quotations and throughout the rest of his other books. 

I believe that such a demonstration is possible: in fact, I have offered such a demonstration in my own two books. 

In my first book, the Mathisen Corollary, I have an entire chapter on the Gilgamesh series of texts, demonstrating that the events and adventures described in the Gilgamesh epic primarily concern the motions of the planets among the zodiac band, as well as the motions of the great central axis of the sky which pierces the north celestial pole and which can be seen to have become "unhinged" due to the motion of precession. 

A few examples of evidence supporting such an assertion include the fact that Gilgamesh chops down the "tallest cedar in the forest" (the one whose top pierces the sky) and then uses it to fashion a special door, one "through which only gods can pass" (a clear reference to the gate of the equinox, where the ecliptic path crosses the celestial equator, encoded as a gate in numerous ancient myths from  cultures around the world -- and the Ishtar Gate of Babylon is almost certainly such a symbol as well, since Ishtar is almost certainly Virgo, and since the sign of Virgo occupies the point of the fall equinox), as well as the fact that Gilgamesh slays the Bull of Heaven and then throws the haunch of the bull in Ishtar's (or Inanna's) face (an event with clear celestial implications, as Taurus the Bull is a prominent zodiac constellation, and the haunch or "hindquarters" of the Bull was an ancient myth-code for the Big Dipper in both ancient Egypt and in the symbology of Mithraism). 

In my more recent book, The Undying Stars, I spent quite a bit of time demonstrating that the stories in both the Old and New Testament are also star-myths. Included is an extended discussion of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent, with clear connections to specific constellations and their motions across the sky. This story was not intended to describe a literal event, but is an esoteric allegory, as were other events discussed by Sitchin as if they were literal history (a literal Noah, taught agriculture for the first time after the flood by the alien visitors figures prominently in Sitchin's imagined history [see for instance his Twelfth Planet, page 413], but I demonstrate that Noah is a counterpart of other flood-surviving figures in other mythologies who are clearly connected to a specific figure in the zodiac, and that their agricultural endeavors can be clearly linked to the symbols associated with that zodiac figure).

The very "descent" of the Nephilim, "cast down" to dwell upon earth, can be demonstrated to have a very clear esoteric and allegorical meaning: these passages describe our human condition in our incarnate state! 

As discussed at length in my book, and in numerous previous posts (many of which have been linked above), the ancient scriptures of the human race were so insistent on allegorizing the motions of the stars in part because they saw the plunge of the stars from the ether of heaven into the earthy or watery horizon (the western horizon) as the perfect metaphor for our incarnate condition: we are each carriers of a divine spark (our individual spirit) which has been plunged into a material body made up of "earth and water" (the "clay" out of which Adam was fashioned in Genesis). We are the Nephilim! We are the ones who came down from the world of spirit, enticed or seduced by the receptive (that is to say, allegorically speaking, female) world of matter. The very word "matter" (as many have pointed out) contains a feminine connotation, related as it is to the word mater or "mother" (as in, "Mother Earth").

This esoteric interpretation of the passage from Genesis 6 would seem to rather undermine the entire thesis of Zechariah Sitchin. 

As I said in the interview, I believe it is commendable to note that our ancient history on this planet is almost certainly very different from what we are taught by the conventional historical paradigm.  To the degree that Sitchin realized this, and sought an answer that was different from that forced down our throats by the proponents of conventional history (in spite of the criticism that was leveled at him for doing so), I believe his efforts can be seen as commendable (as long as they were honest efforts, and not intentionally deceptive, in that they read as literal texts which clearly are not intended to be taken literally).

However, I believe his literalistic approach was wrong, and that the myths he used to fashion his theories can be clearly demonstrated to be metaphorical and esoteric.

I also believe that, to the extent one follows the literalistic theories of Zechariah Sitchin, one will miss the real shamanic-holographic message that the ancient myths are intended to teach -- as surely as one will miss it through the literalistic hermeneutic imposed by conventional forms of Christianity since the second century AD (and especially since the fourth century and the reign of Constantine). 

I can only hope that, in my most recent interview, the constant steering of the conversation away from the esoteric had nothing to do with a desire to avoid getting into the shamanic and holographic truths of the ancient myths. Whatever the reason behind it, the unfortunate thing is that we never did get to discuss that subject to any significant degree at all.

At the top of this post is an image from an ancient Babylonian cylinder-seal. I have never analyzed this seal before, but to one who is familiar with the system of celestial allegory present in the world's mythologies, certain interpretations suggest themselves, and I would hazard to point them out as yet another example of the fact that the ancient Sumerian and Babylonian art and myth was primarily describing zodiac figures (as part of a profound spiritual allegory, and not as a description of the flight paths of ancient alien visitors):

In the above version of the same seal (the resolution is higher in the image at the top of the post, and you can find the original image here), I have added my own labels. This interpretation may not be correct (I just looked at this particular seal for the first time today), but I would be willing to defend this interpretation and can offer more back-up evidence for the above labels (from other myth systems around the world) than I have time or space to offer here.  

Very briefly, it is quite evident that we are probably looking at a zodiacal metaphor from the fact that the figure under the foot of the man on the far right of the seal is bull-like (despite its anthropomorphic face). It has bull-horns on its head, and a reclining bovine body. It is probably Taurus, as will be supported in the further analysis below.

The figure with its foot upon the back of this bull-like being is probably the Sun itself. This figure is holding out a cutting implement with his right hand. As Alvin Boyd Kuhn demonstrates, and as I discuss in The Undying Stars, the sun was allegorized in ancient myth as an axe or cleaver, because it cuts a path across the sky. This symbol of the solar axe is prevalent in ancient Minoan art, for example, but also in other cultures as well.

The first figure in the procession of figures coming in from the left of the image is holding in his hands some kind of smaller animal, as if offering it to the figure on the far right whom I have identified as the personification of the Sun. This animal appears to resemble a sheep and probably signifies the sign of Aries. 

The fact that the cleaver or cutting-tool of the Sun is positioned between the bull-animal (which is being trod down) and the lamb-animal (which is being offered) probably indicates the "crossing point" of the spring equinox, and the advent of the precessional Age of Aries. The Age of Aries followed the Age of Taurus, which is why the bull in the seal is being stepped on (debased or put down -- his precessional Age is over). This imagery was likewise featured in the Mithraic temples (in Mithraic iconography, the Bull was being slain).

If the order of the imagery as we go from right to left is correctly identified as going from Taurus to Aries, then the next sign as we proceed would be Pisces. Here we see a woman-figure, rather than the two fish we would expect for Pisces. This seems to be a problem for this interpretation! But look at the way the woman is holding her hands, up and parallel to one another -- very representative of the constellation Pisces. And, in fact, Alvin Boyd Kuhn has convincingly demonstrated that ancient mythological allegory depicted the annual zodiac year as having not one but two mothers: one at Virgo and one at Pisces (the two signs just before the equinoxes). See his discussion in Lost Light on pages 14 and 15, for instance. Thus, the woman with her two hands in a gesture suggestive of the two fish of the constellation Pisces may well be identified with that zodiac sign, especially since she is in the correct location if the two animals are indeed Taurus and then Aries (going from right to left).

Behind her, we see another figure, striding along and holding a sort of baton in such a way that it seems to be pointing into his side. I have labeled this Aquarius, which is correct if we are right about Taurus and Aries: Pisces would come next (the woman with her hands raised parallel) and then Aquarius behind Pisces. There are good and cogent reasons to believe that this man behind the Pisces figure is indeed Aquarius -- not least that mysterious baton going into his side.

Whether you agree with the above interpretation or not, I believe it is very likely the correct interpretation of the Babylonian seal. In any case, it is a far more likely and a far more supportable interpretation than that the figures represent space aliens. I would argue that other seals from ancient Babylon and Sumer, which Sitchin uses in his analysis to support his case, are more likely allegorical and zodiacal (or planetary, in some cases) than literal.

I believe that the bigger lesson here is that one cannot use the events described in scriptures to try to support literal histories: the events described in the ancient myths are esoteric and allegorical, and not literal. It is not surprising that many look towards a literal interpretation of some sort, almost as a first instinct: that is the way they have been interpreted in western culture since the Roman Empire and the dawn of literalistic Christianity, an approach which has powerfully shaped western civilization since the second, third, and fourth centuries AD.

But, I believe it is an approach which has distracted and diverted us from the real message of the ancients, and the real treasure hidden in the ancient wisdom of the world's mythologies: the shamanic message, and a message of breaking out of the limitations of a false reality and creating new and positive realities to change things for the better. 

It is too bad that this literalistic tendency was able to divert and distract the course of my recent interview, to the point that we never really discussed that shamanic message, that reality-creating message. To that degree, the interview was reflective of much of western history for the past seventeen centuries.

Project Camelot interview from July 18, 2014

Project Camelot interview from July 18, 2014

Above is the YouTube version of my interview with Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot, recorded live on the air on Friday, July 18, 2014.

Please feel free to head over to the YouTube address for the above video to give it a "like" and add comments. You can also of course give feedback on this or anything else I publish here on the blog or in my books via Facebook or Twitter.

Hope you enjoy the interview!

note: There were some aspects of the interview which I believe were regrettable and resulted in the sidestepping of the central (esoteric) aspect of my overarching thesis. As a result, listeners may want to check out a post I wrote after the interview was over, entitled: "Some reflections on my recent Project Camelot interview, and the errors of Zechariah Sitchin" -- I would recommend giving that a read either before or after listening to the interview (probably before).

Also, when the MP3 for this interview becomes available, I will provide a link to that below, so that those who wish to download it to a portable device in order to listen while away from an internet connection will be able to do so.

MP3 is now available: click here to stream or download the MP3, or go to the original page on Project Camelot which contains the same link.

The (shamanic) Lego Movie?

The (shamanic) Lego Movie?

Legos become a metaphor for . . . human existence?

How is that even possible!?!

Spoiler alert: if you haven't already done so, you may want to go watch the Lego Movie before you read any further.

Disclaimer: yes, it's a movie about a corporate product (Legohappens to be a privately-held company, founded in 1932 by Kirk Kristiansen in Denmark). For some reason this will immediately cause some people to turn the movie into their own personal political football and argue that it perfectly illustrates whatever agenda they themselves are trying to advance, or whatever bogeyman they most deeply oppose. 

To some, it will be reviled as too "pro-business" (or as some kind of gigantic advertisement for Legos, mind control for children, etc). 

To others, it will be attacked as subversively anti-business. 

However, I am now going to reveal what the film is actually all about (again, read no further if you want to go watch it first and figure out its meaning for yourself, which may be completely different from what I am about to propose).

I can tell you what the film is actually all about, with 100% certainty that I'm right because . . . I'm special.

And so are you. 

So it may mean something completely different to you (see examples above: pro-business, anti-business, pro-libertarian, anti-libertarian, pro-kids, pro-dads, pro-sisters, pro-pirates, pro-rainbows, pro-Batman . . . you name it). 

But I know with 100% certainty what the movie is about to me. 

Here it is: the Lego Movie is about the shamanic. Transcending barriers. Creating worlds. Altering "reality."

It may seem at first glance that the movie is traveling the well-worn path of saying that "everyone is special" (and it does say that), that childlike-creativity trumps stultifying misguided perfection-seeking adulthood (and it does say that as well), or that you just need to "believe in yourself" (yes, it says that too). 

But not only does the movie convey those messages in ways that go way beyond the typical movie cliches, and in ways that hilariously send-up those same cliches at the same time, but it conveys a message which goes way beyond those messages as we've become accustomed to hearing them or seeing them presented on the screen.* 

Because the Lego Movie is about breaking through the fabric of "reality" and learning to create your own.

This movie is The Matrix using Lego sets.

The protagonist of the film, the hero if you will, is a completely ordinary guy named Emmet, who doesn't seem to have any special talents at all, other than going along with everything that is handed to him and buying into the reality that's handed to him to such a degree that, when his co-workers are interrogated by the police regarding the details of his personal life and character, they describe him as "a little bit of a blank slate," if they can even remember who he is at all. He follows the instruction manuals slavishly and is lost if he doesn't have "directions."

When Emmet accidentally stumbles across the "relic" which can save the world from destruction, he is hailed by the secret Master Builders as "the Special" who will lead them to stop the evil mastermind who has been putting up barriers between the worlds and who is planning in three days to freeze everyone and take away the last vestiges of their autonomy. But they quickly discover that, unlike all the other Master Builders who manifest extraordinary and unique talents which combine acrobatic martial arts, witty one-liners, and the ability to build anything out of anything, Emmett has difficulty creating anything original at all. Even mustering up an original thought seems to be a challenge for him.

And yet, Emmet turns out to be truly special, and in a way that surpasses all of the incredible Master Builders that he meets. He has one gift which he didn't even realize that he had, a gift so unique that  when he mentions it in an offhanded sort of way, none of the Master Builders can believe it.

(This is your final spoiler alert of this blog post: stop reading now if you haven't seen the film and don't want to know in advance what sets Emmet apart from every other Lego figure in the world of Legos). Scroll down below the Lego Movie trailer to learn more . . .

Here it comes:

Emmet, alone among all the other Lego characters in the Lego world of the film, can transcend the boundaries to the other world.

That's right. Without even realizing it, Emmet is a sort of Lego-shaman.

He has moments in which he enters a trance-state and sees hazy visions of the actual place where flesh-and-blood human beings are playing with all the Legos that inhabit the various worlds of the film. He even sees a kitten at one point.

And, what's more, he is actually able to move around (with great effort) in that other realm during the film's critical moments, and in doing so to change events

on the other side. This is the only way that events in the "regular world" (that is to say, for the Lego characters, events in the Lego world) can hope to be put right: on their own, even the combined powers of all the Master Builders are unable to stop the implacable Will Ferrell. And, this talent (however un-sought-out it appears to be in the character of Emmet, who just seems to possess it without knowing where it came from) marks Emmet as a shamanic character.

In Mircea Eliade's landmark examination of shamanism around the world, entitled Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy and first published in French in 1951 based on research and first-hand accounts collected during the first half of the twentieth century and the end of the nineteenth, when more shamanic cultures were available for study than remain today, the author defines shamanism in a very restricted sense, as the technique of actually traveling to the other world.

It is not the same as dealing with spirits, or with magic, or with the realm of the dead. Although shamanism involves all of those things, Eliade explains that one can interact with spirits without being a shaman. The difference is that the shaman has the ability to go to the spirit world and return.

 The shaman transcends the world of stasis (the world of the static, or stationary) and possesses techniques of ecstasy: techniques of transcending the static world:

A first definition of this complex phenomenon, and perhaps the least hazardous, will be: shamanism = technique of ecstasy.
[. . .]
Magic and magicians are to be found more or less all over the world, whereas shamanism exhibits a particular magical specialty, on which we shall later dwell at length: "mastery over fire," "magical flight," and so on. By virtue of this fact, though the shaman is, among other things, a magician, not every magician can properly be termed a shaman. The same distinction must be applied in regard to shamanic healing; every medicine man is a healer, but the shaman employs a method that is his and his alone. As for the shamanic techniques of ecstasy, they do not exhaust all the varieties of ecstatic experience documented in the history of religions and religious ethnology. Hence any ecstatic cannot be considered a shaman; the shaman specializes in a trance during which his soul is believed to leave his body and ascend to the sky or descend to the underworld.
[. . .]
Shamans are of the "elect," and as such they have access to a region of the sacred inaccessible to other members of the community. Eliade, 4-7.

Seen in this light, the Lego Movie is clearly a shamanic movie. Note that the antagonist character in the Lego Movie has a chilling plan: to make everything static -- permanently static. He has already implemented the creation of barriers "between the worlds" which the Lego characters resent and which restrict their freedom to create and to grow and thrive. His ultimate vision is to freeze everything in place, and in doing so to destroy creativity and dynamism forever. This plan is only thwarted by a character who can transcend the ultimate boundary: the boundary between the Lego world and the "people world." Ultimately, Emmet defeats the threat of the static through the technique of ecstasy.

As it turns out, the plot and themes of the Lego Movie parallel the message which I believe lies at the heart of every ancient sacred myth and scripture of the human race: a message that this realm we inhabit is in some ways a "construct," a "projection," even a "hologram" (to use a metaphor which serious theoretical physicists began to apply in their models of the universe, models which were proposed in response to the often-disturbing results of experiments such as those which gave rise to what we now call quantum physics).

Those scriptures teach that there is another realm, a "seed realm," a realm of the neters, a realm of the gods, a spirit world. It is this other world that contains the "pattern" for everything in this realm. And it is to this other realm that the shaman must sometimes travel, in order to effect changes which will manifest themselves in the physical world or the "ordinary world."

So, in the Lego Movie, which realm is which? Clearly, the Lego world (where Emmet starts out, and where most of the film's action takes place; the realm in which most of the characters spend all of their time) becomes in the film a metaphor for our world. The Lego world, like our world, is in some sense "just a construct." Plato might describe the Lego world as a projection of ideas or patterns that come from or which reside on the other side (the realm of the ideal, in his terminology).

The "people world" where Will Ferrell and his son actually play with the Legos and turn their ideas into reality becomes, in the movie, the allegorical representation of the ideal world, the spirit world, the world of the gods, the world of the patterns that will work themselves out in the Lego world, the constructed world.

Like Neo in The Matrix, Emmet is somehow blessed with the ability to see beyond the projected world, the constructed world. He can look into the side where the patterns reside, and he finds that he can even effect changes there. Similarly, in The Matrix, Neo can look into the "source code" that creates the mundane world -- and he finds that he can actually effect changes to that source code, effect changes in the "other realm" and by doing so make changes in the projected world.

Neo is "the One." Emmet is "the Special."

These are not just cliche'd terms. This is not a movie that just proclaims "everyone is special," although it does send the message that everyone can actually transcend the artificial limitations and create realities -- and that everyone should. Perhaps not everyone can be a shaman, per se, but everyone can be an artist (we see that in the fact that in the Lego Movie, the Master Builders can create incredible vehicles and devices using their creativity and imagination, even if they cannot like Emmet travel to the "other side" in a state of shamanic ecstasy).

And this, too, is the message of all ancient myth and sacred scripture, even though those myths have often been twisted to mean something completely the opposite (twisted, in fact, to send a message that is remarkably like the chilling vision of the maniacal villain in the Lego Movie, who wants to create rigid un-crossable boundaries around everything, and who wants to put everyone into a charming pose and then freeze them in that pose forever).

It is a vision which has perhaps been articulated most powerfully among modern writers and speakers by Jon Rappoport -- read through this examination of the barrier-breaking talk he delivered at the Secret Space Program conference at the end of last month and see if the themes in the Lego Movie involving the creation of entirely new worlds and new realities does not resonate with what he is expounding, and what he argues the trickster-gods found in almost every ancient mythology was trying to tell us.

The Lego Movie's opening sequences depict a world of stultifying conformity, of mass surveillance, of happy distractions, and of a brutal police state wedded to the goals of enormous corporations and willing to use violence and torture to further diabolical ends and to rob individuals of their inherent dignity, creativity, and spark of divinity. It seems to argue that the solutions to these terrifying conditions involve -- even require -- the individual to transcend the artificial barriers erected to keep them from creating new worlds and new realities.

And, like The Matrix, it invites us to explore the possibility that this world is in some ways a construct, a projection, even an illusion. By understanding its interdependence on the seed realm, the realm of patterns, the ideal realm, or the spirit realm, and the fact that changes which are made on one side can effect changes on the other side, we can understand a lot more of what is going on around us . . . and how to thwart the plans of those who have declared themselves to be the enemies of human freedom, consciousness, creativity, and divinity.

----------------------------

* (And by the way, if you're thinking of taking your young children to see it, here's another caution to those who haven't seen it yet: it's scary! At least, I got scared, when they started freezing Liam Neeson's parents and wiping out his face and parts of his personality. But maybe your kids are used to seeing that kind of stuff in films and it won't bother them -- I don't know).

(There's also a melting-chamber for Legos).  (Yikes!).