I have to get off the toilet but I will discuss The Gods here as various conglomerations of themes and associations and desires which make up their character and repeated appearance in human thought and history.
For example, the salvic figure of Jesus whose name is said to mean Yah Saves in its usual etymology based off of Hebrew as a variant of Yahushua or Joshua, which was not his name according to the Qur'an which calls him Isa, thought to be a version of Iesoos of the Greek transliteration of Yahsu, though as just Isa might refer to a different etymology, and likewise thesalvic nature of Jesus is completely eliminated in Islam or the Qur'an for the most part.
Mary represents for many the feminine salvic, the Mother figure of utter care and unconditional nurturing which mankind depends on from the earliest age and has often experienced in some way if they have survived thus far, where Jesus much more is associated with hope and the future than Mary who is often sought in the present more in some ways.
The God(s): Deconstructing Religious & Magical Thinking
Moderator: atreestump
Forum rules
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
The God(s): Deconstructing Religious & Magical Thinking
Last edited by kFoyauextlH on Mon Aug 04, 2025 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: The Gods
This was posted in the NDE thread:
http://systemsphilosophy.org/files/Publ ... 99-435.pdf
This image was shown on the other site:
https://www.reddit.com/r/occult/comment ... k_and_the/
http://www.ccru.net/digithype/pandemonium.htm
0 Sun
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3 Earth
4 Mars
5 Jupiter
6 Saturn
7 Uranus
8 Neptune
9 Pluto
These are the 45 combinations they mention:
"
Pandemonium Matrix (Extracts from the Lemurian Necronomicon).
Mesh-00: Lurgo (Legba). (Terminal) Initiator. (Clicks Gt-00). Pitch Ana-1. Net-Span 1::0. Amphidemon of Openings. (The Door of Doors). Cipher Gt-01, Gt-10. 1st Door (The Pod) [Mercury], Dorsal. 1st Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#7, Mj+ [7C]. Rt-1:[1890] Spinal-voyage (fate line), programming.
Mesh-01: Duoddod. Duplicitous Redoubler. (Clicks Gt-01). Pitch Ana-2. Net-Span 2::0. Amphidemon of Abstract Addiction 2nd Door (The Crypt) [Venus], Cervical. Decadology. C/tp-#8, Mj+ [8C]. Rt-1:[271890] Pineal-regression (rear vision). Rt-2:[27541890] Datacomb searches, digital exactitude (every second counts). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-02. Doogu (The Blob). Original-Schism. Pitch Ana-3. Net-Span 2::1 Cyclic Chronodemon of Splitting-Waters. Ciphers Gt-21. Shadows Surge-Current. 2nd Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#1 Mn+ [1H]. Rt-1:[1872] Mn. Primordial breath (pneumatic practices). Rt-2:[271] Ambivalent capture, hooks (live-bait, traps, plot-twists) Rt-3:[27541] Mj. Slow pull to stasis, protection from drowning. [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-03. Ixix (Yix). Abductor. (Clicks Gt-03). Pitch Ana-3 Net-Span 3::0 Chaotic Xenodemon of Cosmic Indifference. Ciphers Gt-03. 3rd Door (The Swirl), [Earth]. Cranial. Rt-0:[?]. Occult terrestrial history (Who does the Earth think It Is?)
Mesh-04. Ixigool (Djinn of the Magi). Over-Ghoul. Pitch Ana-4. Net Span 3::1 Amphidemon of Tridentity (Sphinx-time). Decadology. C/tp-#4, Mn+ [4H]. Rt-1:[18723]. Unimpeded ascent (prophecy). Rt-2:[1872563]. Ultimate implications, (as above so below). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-05. Ixidod (King Sid). The Zombie-Maker. Pitch Ana-5. Net Span 3::2 Amphidemon of Escape-velocity. Haunts Gt-03. 3rd Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#5, Mn+ [5H]. Rt-1:[23] Crises through excess (micropause abuse) Rt-2:[27563] Illusion of progress (out of the frying-pan into the fire). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-06. Krako (Kru, Karak-oa). The Croaking Curse. Pitch Ana-4 Net-Span 4::0 Amphidemon of Burning-Hail 4th Door (Delta) Mars. Cervical Decadology. C/tp-#9, Mj+ [9C]. Rt-1:[41890] Subsidence, heaviness of fatality. [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-07. Sukugool (Old Skug). The Sucking-Ghoul. Pitch Ana-5. Net-Span 4::1 Cyclic Chronodemon of deluge and implosion. Prowls Sink-Current. Haunts Gt-10 Decadology. C/tp-#3, Mj+ [3C]. Rt-1:[187254] Mn. Cycle of creation and destruction. Rt-2:[41] Mj. Submersion (gravedigging). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-08. Skoodu (Li'l Scud). The Fashioner. Pitch Ana-6 Net-Span 4::2 Cyclic Chronodemon of Switch-Crazes. Shadows Hold-Current Decadology. C/tp-#2, Mn+ [2H]. Rt-1:[2754] Mn. Historical time (eschatology). Rt-2:[41872] Passage through the deep. Rt-3:[451872] Mj. Cyclic reconstitution and stability.
Mesh-09. Skarkix (Sharky, Scar-head). Buzz-Cutter. Pitch Ana-7 (Uppermost). Net-Span 4::3 Amphidemon of anti-evolution (eddies of the Delta). 4th Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#6, Mj+ [6C]. Rt-1:[418723] Hermetic abbreviations (history of the magicians). Rt-2:[4518723] Sacred seal of time (triadic reconfirmation of the cycle). Rt-3:[4563] Apocalyptic rapture (jagged turbulence). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-10. Tokhatto (Old Toker, Top Cat). Decimal Camouflage. Pitch Cth-4 Net-Span 5::0 Amphidemon of Talismania. 5th Door (Hyperborea) [Jupiter], Cervical. Decadology. C/tp-#9, Mj- [9S]. Angel of the Cards. Rt-1:[541890] Number as destiny (digital convergence). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-11. Tukkamu. Occulturation. Pitch Cth-3. Net-Span 5::1 Cyclic Chronodemon of Pathogenesis. Ciphers Gt-15. Prowls Sink-Current Decadology. C/tp-#3, Mj- [3S]. Rt-1:[18725] Mn. Optimal maturation (medicine as diffuse healing). Rt-2:[541] Mj. Rapid deterioration (putrefaction, catabolism). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-12. Kuttadid (Kitty). Ticking Machines. Pitch Cth-2 Net-Span 5::2 Cyclic Chronodemon of Precarious States. Prowls Hold-Current Decadology. C/tp-#2, Mn- [2D]. Rt-1:[275] Mn. Maintaining balance (calendric conservatism). Rt-2:[541872] Mj. Exhaustive vigilance. [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-13. Tikkitix (Tickler). Clicking Menaces. Pitch Cth-1 Net-Span 5::3 Amphidemon of Vortical Delirium Decadology. C/tp-#6, Mj- [6S]. Rt-1:[5418723] Swirl-patterns (tornadoes, wind-voices). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[563] Mysterious disappearances (things carried-away). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-14. Katak. Desolator. Pitch Null. Net-Span 5::4 Syzygetic Chronodemon of Cataclysmic Convergence. Feeds Sink-Current. Ciphers Gt-45 5th Phase limit Decadology. C/tp-#0 [Joker]. Rt-0:[X] Tail-chasing, rabid animals (nature red in tooth and claw). Rt-1:[418725] Panic (slasher pulp and religious fervour).
Mesh-15 Tchu (Tchanul). Source of Subnothingness. Pitch Cth-3 Net-Span 6::0 Chaotic Xenodemon of Ultimate Outsideness (and unnamable things). 6th Door (Undu) [Saturn].Cranial Rt-0:[?] Cosmic deletions and real impossibilities.
Mesh-16. Djungo. Infiltrator. Pitch Cth-2 Net Span 6::1 Amphidemon of Subtle Involvements (and intricate puzzles). Decadology. C/tp-#4, Mn- [4D]. Rt-1:[187236] Turbular fluids (maelstroms, chaotic incalculability). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[187256] Surreptitious invasions, inexplicable contaminations (fish falls).
Mesh-17. Djuddha (Judd Dread). Decentred Threat. Pitch Cth-2 Net-Span 6::2 Amphidemon of Artificial Turbulence (complex-dynamics simulations) Decadology. C/tp-#5, Mn- [5D]. Rt-1:[236] Machine-vortex (seething skin). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[256] Storm peripheries (Wendigo legends).
Mesh-18. Djynxx (Ching, The Jinn). Child Stealer. Pitch Null Net-Span 6::3 Syzygetic Xenodemon of Time-Lapse. Feeds and Prowls Warp-Current. Ciphers Gt-36. Haunts Gt-06, Gt-21. Rt-0:[X] Abstract cyclones, dust spirals (nomad war-machine). [+2 sub-Rt].
Mesh-19. Tchakki (Chuckles). Bag of Tricks. Pitch Ana-1. Net-Span 6::4 Amphidemon of Combustion. Decadology. C/tp-#6, Mn+ [6H]. 1st Decademon. Rt-1:[4187236] Quenching accidents (apprentice smiths). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[45187236] Mappings between incompatible time-systems (Herakleitean fire-cycle). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-3:[456] Conflagrations (shrieking deliria, spontaneous combustion).
Mesh-20. Tchattuk (One Eyed Jack, Djatka). Pseudo-Basis. Pitch Cth-7 (Lowermost). Net-Span 6::5 Amphidemon of Unscreened Matrix. Haunts Gt-15. 6th Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#6, Mn- [6D]. Rt-1:[54187236] Zero-gravity. [+2 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[56] Cut-outs (UFO cover-ups, Nephilim).
Mesh-21. Puppo (The Pup). Break-Outs. Pitch Cth-2. Net-Span 7::0 Amphidemon of Larval Regression. 7th Door (Akasha) [Uranus], Cervical Decadology. C/tp-#8, Mj- [8S]. Rt-1:[71890] Dissolving into slime (masked horrors). Rt-2:[72541890] Chthonic swallowings. [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-22. Bubbamu (Bubs). After Babylon. Pitch Cth-1. Net-Span 7::1 Cyclic Chronodemon of Relapse. Prowls Surge-Current. Haunts Gt-28. Decadology. C/tp-#1, Mn- [1D]. Rt-1:[187] Mn. Hypersea (marine life on land). Rt-2:[71] Aquassassins (Black-Atlantis). Rt-3:[72541] Mj. Seawalls (dry-time, taboo on menstruation).
Mesh-23. Oddubb (Odba). Broken Mirror. Pitch Null Net-Span 7::2 Syzygetic Chronodemon of Swamp-Labyrinths (and blind-doubles). Feeds Hold-Current. Rt-0:[X]. Time loops, glamour and glosses.
Mesh-24. Pabbakis (Pabzix). Dabbler. Pitch Ana-1 Net-Span 7::3 Amphidemon of Interference (and fakery). Decadology. C/tp-#5, Mj+ [5C]. 2nd Decademon. Rt-1:[723] Batrachian mutations (and frog-plagues). Rt-2:[72563] Cans of worms (vermophobic hysteria, propagation by division). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-25. Ababbatok (Abracadabra). Regenerator. Pitch Ana-2 Net-Span 7::4 Cyclic Chronodemon of Suspended Decay. Shadows Hold-Current Decadology. C/tp-#2, Mj+ [2C]. Rt-1:[4187] Frankensteinian experimentation (reanimations, golems). Rt-2:[45187] Mn. Purifications, amphibious cycles (and healing of wounds). Rt-3:[7254] Mj. Sustenance (smoke visions).
Mesh-26. Papatakoo (Pataku) Upholder. Pitch Cth-6 Net-Span 7::5 Cyclic Chronodemon of Calendric Time. Prowls Hold-Current Decadology. C/tp-#2, Mj- [2S]. Rt-1:[54187] Mn. Ultimate success (perseverance, blood sacrifice). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[725] Mj. Rituals becoming nature.
Mesh-27. Bobobja (Bubbles, Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies)). Heavy Atmosphere Pitch Cth-5 Net-Span 7::6 Amphidemon of Teeming Pestilence. 7th Phase-limit Decadology. C/tp-#5, Mj- [5S]. Rt-1:[7236] Strange lights in the swamp (dragonflies, ET frog-cults). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[7256] Swarmachines (lost harvests).
Mesh-28. Minommo. Webmaker. Pitch Cth-1 Net-Span 8::0 Amphidemon of Submergance. 8th Door (Limbo) [Neptune] Lumbar Decadology. C/tp-#7, Mj- [7S]. Rt-1:[890] Shamanic voyage (dream sorcery and mitochondrial chatter).
Mesh-29. Mur Mur (Murrumur, Mu(mu)). Dream-Serpent. Pitch Null Net-Span 8::1 Syzygetic Chronodemon of the Deep Ones. Feeds Surge-Current. Rt-0:[X] Oceanic sensation (gilled-unlife and spinal-regressions).
Mesh-30. Nammamad. Mirroracle. Pitch Ana-1 Net-Span 8::2 Cyclic Chronodemon of Subterranean Commerce. Shadows Surge-Current.Ciphers Gt-28 Decadology. C/tp-#1, Mj+ [1C]. 3rd Decademon Rt-1:[2718] Voodoo in cyberspace (cthulhoid traffic). Rt-2:[275418] Mn. Completion as final collapse (heat-death, degenerative psychoses). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-3:[8172] Mj. Emergences (and things washed-up on beaches).
Mesh-31. Mummumix (Mix-Up). The Mist-Crawler. Pitch Ana-2. Net-Span 8::3 Amphidemon of Insidious Fog (Nyarlathotep) Decadology. C/tp-#4, Mj+ [4C]. Rt-1:[81723] Ocean storms (and xenocommunication on the bacterial plane). Rt-2:[8172563] Diseases from outer-space (oankali medicine). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-32. Numko (Old Nuk). Keeper of Old Terrors. Pitch Ana-3. Net-Span 8::4 Cyclic Chronodemon of Autochthony. Prowls Sink-Current Decadology. C/tp-#3, Mn+ [3H]. Rt-1:[418] Necrospeleology (abysmal patience rewarded). Rt-2:[4518] Mn. Subduction (and carnivorous fish). Rt-3:[817254] Mj. Vulcanism (and bacterial intelligence).
Mesh-33. Muntuk (Manta, Manitou). Desert Swimmer. Pitch Cth-5 Net-Span 8::5 Cyclic Chronodemon of Arid Seabeds. Shadows Sink-Current. Decadology. C/tp-#3, Mn- [3D]. Rt-1:[5418] Mn. Ancient rivers. [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[81725] Mj. Cloud-vaults and oppressive tension (protection during monsoon)
Mesh-34. Mommoljo (Mama Jo). Alien Mother. Pitch Cth-4. Net-Span 8::6 Amphidemon of Xenogenesis Decadology. C/tp-#4, Mj- [4S]. Rt-1:[817236] Cosmobacterial exogermination. [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[817256] Extraterrestrial residues (including alien DNA segments).
Mesh-35. Mombbo. Tentacle Face (Fishy-princess). Pitch Cth-3 Net-Span 8::7 Cyclic Chronodemon of Hybridity. Prowls Surge-Current 8th Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#1, Mj- [1S]. Rt-1:[718] Ophidian transmutation (palaeopythons). Rt-2:[725418] Mn. Surreptitious colonization [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-3:[817] Mj. Surface-amnesia (old fishwives tales).
Mesh-36. Uttunul. Seething Void (clicks Gt-36) Pitch Null Net-Span 9::0 Syzygetic Xenodemon of Atonality. Feeds and Prowls Plex-Current, Haunts Gt-45 9th Door (Cthelll) [Pluto], Sacrum Rt-0:[X] Crossing the iron-ocean (plutonics)
Mesh-37. Tutagool (Yettuk). The Tattered Ghoul. Pitch Ana-1. Net-Span 9::1 Amphidemon of Punctuality. Decadology. C/tp-#7, Mn+ [7H]. 4th Decademon Rt-1:[189] The dark arts, rusting iron, tattooing (one-way ticket to Hell).
Mesh-38. Unnunddo (The False Nun). Double-Undoing. Pitch Ana-2. Net-Span 9::2 Amphidemon of Endless Uncasing (onion-skin horror) Decadology. C/tp-#8, Mn+ [8H]. Rt-1:[27189] Crypt-traffic (and centipede simulations). Rt-2:[2754189] Communication-grids (telecom webs, shamanic metallism).[+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-39. Ununuttix (Tick-Tock). Particle Clocks. Pitch Ana-3 Net-Span 9::3 Chaotic Xenodemon of Absolute Coincidence Rt-0:[?] Numerical connection through the absence of any link
Mesh-40. Ununak (Nuke). Blind Catastrophe. Pitch Ana-4. Net-Span 9::4 Amphidemon of Convulsions. Decadology. C/tp-#9, Mn+ [9H]. Rt-1:[4189] Secrets of the blacksmiths. Rt-2:[45189] Subterranean impulses.
Mesh-41. Tukutu (Killer-Kate). Cosmotraumatics. Pitch Cth-4 Net Span 9::5 Amphidemon of Death-Strokes. Decadology. C/tp-#9, Mn- [9D]. Rt-1:[54189] Crash-signals (barkerian scarring). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-42. Unnutchi (Outch, T'ai Chi). Tachyonic immobility (slow vortex). Pitch Cth-3. Net-Span 9::6 Chaotic Xenodemon of Coiling Outsideness. Rt-0:[?] Asymmetric zygopoise (and cybernetic anomalies).
Mesh-43. Nuttubab (Nut-Cracker). Mimetic Anorganism. Pitch Cth-2 Net-Span 9::7 Amphidemon of Metaloid Unlife. Decadology. C/tp-#8, Mn- [8D]. Rt-1:[7189] Lunacies (iron in the blood). Rt-2:[7254189] Dragon-lines (terrestrial electromagnetism). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-44. Ummnu (Om, Omni, Amen, Omen). Ultimate Inconsequence. Pitch Cth-1 Net-Span 9::8 Amphidemon of Earth-Screams. Haunts Gt-36 9th Phase-limit Decadology. C/tp-#7, Mn- [7D]. Rt-0:[89] Crust-friction (anorganic tension).
"
My system is:
1. Zeus Gas Jupiter Force
2. Poseidon Liquid Moon Generating Information
3. Hades Solid Saturn Completion History
4. Hermes Plasma Mercury Change Interaction
5. Aphrodite Growth Venus Biology Beauty Ideals
6. Apollo Deconstruction Mars Sound Atomizing
7. Cronus (King) Authority Sun
8. Astraios (Wizard) Mapping Stars
9. Dionysus (Free Person) Renewal Return
10. Theos Pan Daimon (God) Totality
11. Aggelos (Messenger) Significance
12. Heros (Action) Process
The numbers are significant also. They repeat after 3, so each new 3 are versions of the last 3 and mixtures of those elements
1. Air Boss
2. Water Wizard
3. Nature Judge
(The qualities seem to change and mix up here)
4. 1 Air + 2 Water = Lightning (Most Like Water)
5. 2 Water + 3 Earth = Growth (Most Like Earth)
6. 3 Earth + 1 Air = Deconstruction, Sound (Most Like Air)
7. Most Like Air (3&6)
8. Most Like Water (2&4)
9. Most Like Earth (1&5)
10. Most Like Air (1+0)
11. Most Like Water (1+1)
12. Most Like Earth (1+3)
These three repeat forever, and are all one anyway, the aspects of the Hero, the Teacher, the Judge, with different nuances to the level or way or degree they seem to present at symbolically.
Hilarious that I just looked up at the earlier post and was apparently on the toilet (The White Throne) when I wrote that too.
Also, the names associated with each number can be replaced with others that fit well. For example:
1. Hera
2. Metis
3. Hecate
4. Athena
5. Artemis
6. Persephone
In a lot of cases, symbols for Athena seem to show up as Zeus symbols, symbols of Persephone and Artemis switch between 5 and 6 when Persephone is in life mode or death mode in stories. Athena switches between 1 and 2 and 4 and 5.
The collection of themes remains pretty neatly associated with each other, but people's stories and uses switch things around, like they started to associate Apollo with the Sun after a very long history associated with Mars all around the world.
http://systemsphilosophy.org/files/Publ ... 99-435.pdf
This image was shown on the other site:
https://www.reddit.com/r/occult/comment ... k_and_the/
http://www.ccru.net/digithype/pandemonium.htm
0 Sun
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3 Earth
4 Mars
5 Jupiter
6 Saturn
7 Uranus
8 Neptune
9 Pluto
These are the 45 combinations they mention:
"
Pandemonium Matrix (Extracts from the Lemurian Necronomicon).
Mesh-00: Lurgo (Legba). (Terminal) Initiator. (Clicks Gt-00). Pitch Ana-1. Net-Span 1::0. Amphidemon of Openings. (The Door of Doors). Cipher Gt-01, Gt-10. 1st Door (The Pod) [Mercury], Dorsal. 1st Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#7, Mj+ [7C]. Rt-1:[1890] Spinal-voyage (fate line), programming.
Mesh-01: Duoddod. Duplicitous Redoubler. (Clicks Gt-01). Pitch Ana-2. Net-Span 2::0. Amphidemon of Abstract Addiction 2nd Door (The Crypt) [Venus], Cervical. Decadology. C/tp-#8, Mj+ [8C]. Rt-1:[271890] Pineal-regression (rear vision). Rt-2:[27541890] Datacomb searches, digital exactitude (every second counts). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-02. Doogu (The Blob). Original-Schism. Pitch Ana-3. Net-Span 2::1 Cyclic Chronodemon of Splitting-Waters. Ciphers Gt-21. Shadows Surge-Current. 2nd Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#1 Mn+ [1H]. Rt-1:[1872] Mn. Primordial breath (pneumatic practices). Rt-2:[271] Ambivalent capture, hooks (live-bait, traps, plot-twists) Rt-3:[27541] Mj. Slow pull to stasis, protection from drowning. [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-03. Ixix (Yix). Abductor. (Clicks Gt-03). Pitch Ana-3 Net-Span 3::0 Chaotic Xenodemon of Cosmic Indifference. Ciphers Gt-03. 3rd Door (The Swirl), [Earth]. Cranial. Rt-0:[?]. Occult terrestrial history (Who does the Earth think It Is?)
Mesh-04. Ixigool (Djinn of the Magi). Over-Ghoul. Pitch Ana-4. Net Span 3::1 Amphidemon of Tridentity (Sphinx-time). Decadology. C/tp-#4, Mn+ [4H]. Rt-1:[18723]. Unimpeded ascent (prophecy). Rt-2:[1872563]. Ultimate implications, (as above so below). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-05. Ixidod (King Sid). The Zombie-Maker. Pitch Ana-5. Net Span 3::2 Amphidemon of Escape-velocity. Haunts Gt-03. 3rd Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#5, Mn+ [5H]. Rt-1:[23] Crises through excess (micropause abuse) Rt-2:[27563] Illusion of progress (out of the frying-pan into the fire). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-06. Krako (Kru, Karak-oa). The Croaking Curse. Pitch Ana-4 Net-Span 4::0 Amphidemon of Burning-Hail 4th Door (Delta) Mars. Cervical Decadology. C/tp-#9, Mj+ [9C]. Rt-1:[41890] Subsidence, heaviness of fatality. [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-07. Sukugool (Old Skug). The Sucking-Ghoul. Pitch Ana-5. Net-Span 4::1 Cyclic Chronodemon of deluge and implosion. Prowls Sink-Current. Haunts Gt-10 Decadology. C/tp-#3, Mj+ [3C]. Rt-1:[187254] Mn. Cycle of creation and destruction. Rt-2:[41] Mj. Submersion (gravedigging). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-08. Skoodu (Li'l Scud). The Fashioner. Pitch Ana-6 Net-Span 4::2 Cyclic Chronodemon of Switch-Crazes. Shadows Hold-Current Decadology. C/tp-#2, Mn+ [2H]. Rt-1:[2754] Mn. Historical time (eschatology). Rt-2:[41872] Passage through the deep. Rt-3:[451872] Mj. Cyclic reconstitution and stability.
Mesh-09. Skarkix (Sharky, Scar-head). Buzz-Cutter. Pitch Ana-7 (Uppermost). Net-Span 4::3 Amphidemon of anti-evolution (eddies of the Delta). 4th Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#6, Mj+ [6C]. Rt-1:[418723] Hermetic abbreviations (history of the magicians). Rt-2:[4518723] Sacred seal of time (triadic reconfirmation of the cycle). Rt-3:[4563] Apocalyptic rapture (jagged turbulence). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-10. Tokhatto (Old Toker, Top Cat). Decimal Camouflage. Pitch Cth-4 Net-Span 5::0 Amphidemon of Talismania. 5th Door (Hyperborea) [Jupiter], Cervical. Decadology. C/tp-#9, Mj- [9S]. Angel of the Cards. Rt-1:[541890] Number as destiny (digital convergence). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-11. Tukkamu. Occulturation. Pitch Cth-3. Net-Span 5::1 Cyclic Chronodemon of Pathogenesis. Ciphers Gt-15. Prowls Sink-Current Decadology. C/tp-#3, Mj- [3S]. Rt-1:[18725] Mn. Optimal maturation (medicine as diffuse healing). Rt-2:[541] Mj. Rapid deterioration (putrefaction, catabolism). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-12. Kuttadid (Kitty). Ticking Machines. Pitch Cth-2 Net-Span 5::2 Cyclic Chronodemon of Precarious States. Prowls Hold-Current Decadology. C/tp-#2, Mn- [2D]. Rt-1:[275] Mn. Maintaining balance (calendric conservatism). Rt-2:[541872] Mj. Exhaustive vigilance. [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-13. Tikkitix (Tickler). Clicking Menaces. Pitch Cth-1 Net-Span 5::3 Amphidemon of Vortical Delirium Decadology. C/tp-#6, Mj- [6S]. Rt-1:[5418723] Swirl-patterns (tornadoes, wind-voices). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[563] Mysterious disappearances (things carried-away). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-14. Katak. Desolator. Pitch Null. Net-Span 5::4 Syzygetic Chronodemon of Cataclysmic Convergence. Feeds Sink-Current. Ciphers Gt-45 5th Phase limit Decadology. C/tp-#0 [Joker]. Rt-0:[X] Tail-chasing, rabid animals (nature red in tooth and claw). Rt-1:[418725] Panic (slasher pulp and religious fervour).
Mesh-15 Tchu (Tchanul). Source of Subnothingness. Pitch Cth-3 Net-Span 6::0 Chaotic Xenodemon of Ultimate Outsideness (and unnamable things). 6th Door (Undu) [Saturn].Cranial Rt-0:[?] Cosmic deletions and real impossibilities.
Mesh-16. Djungo. Infiltrator. Pitch Cth-2 Net Span 6::1 Amphidemon of Subtle Involvements (and intricate puzzles). Decadology. C/tp-#4, Mn- [4D]. Rt-1:[187236] Turbular fluids (maelstroms, chaotic incalculability). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[187256] Surreptitious invasions, inexplicable contaminations (fish falls).
Mesh-17. Djuddha (Judd Dread). Decentred Threat. Pitch Cth-2 Net-Span 6::2 Amphidemon of Artificial Turbulence (complex-dynamics simulations) Decadology. C/tp-#5, Mn- [5D]. Rt-1:[236] Machine-vortex (seething skin). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[256] Storm peripheries (Wendigo legends).
Mesh-18. Djynxx (Ching, The Jinn). Child Stealer. Pitch Null Net-Span 6::3 Syzygetic Xenodemon of Time-Lapse. Feeds and Prowls Warp-Current. Ciphers Gt-36. Haunts Gt-06, Gt-21. Rt-0:[X] Abstract cyclones, dust spirals (nomad war-machine). [+2 sub-Rt].
Mesh-19. Tchakki (Chuckles). Bag of Tricks. Pitch Ana-1. Net-Span 6::4 Amphidemon of Combustion. Decadology. C/tp-#6, Mn+ [6H]. 1st Decademon. Rt-1:[4187236] Quenching accidents (apprentice smiths). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[45187236] Mappings between incompatible time-systems (Herakleitean fire-cycle). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-3:[456] Conflagrations (shrieking deliria, spontaneous combustion).
Mesh-20. Tchattuk (One Eyed Jack, Djatka). Pseudo-Basis. Pitch Cth-7 (Lowermost). Net-Span 6::5 Amphidemon of Unscreened Matrix. Haunts Gt-15. 6th Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#6, Mn- [6D]. Rt-1:[54187236] Zero-gravity. [+2 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[56] Cut-outs (UFO cover-ups, Nephilim).
Mesh-21. Puppo (The Pup). Break-Outs. Pitch Cth-2. Net-Span 7::0 Amphidemon of Larval Regression. 7th Door (Akasha) [Uranus], Cervical Decadology. C/tp-#8, Mj- [8S]. Rt-1:[71890] Dissolving into slime (masked horrors). Rt-2:[72541890] Chthonic swallowings. [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-22. Bubbamu (Bubs). After Babylon. Pitch Cth-1. Net-Span 7::1 Cyclic Chronodemon of Relapse. Prowls Surge-Current. Haunts Gt-28. Decadology. C/tp-#1, Mn- [1D]. Rt-1:[187] Mn. Hypersea (marine life on land). Rt-2:[71] Aquassassins (Black-Atlantis). Rt-3:[72541] Mj. Seawalls (dry-time, taboo on menstruation).
Mesh-23. Oddubb (Odba). Broken Mirror. Pitch Null Net-Span 7::2 Syzygetic Chronodemon of Swamp-Labyrinths (and blind-doubles). Feeds Hold-Current. Rt-0:[X]. Time loops, glamour and glosses.
Mesh-24. Pabbakis (Pabzix). Dabbler. Pitch Ana-1 Net-Span 7::3 Amphidemon of Interference (and fakery). Decadology. C/tp-#5, Mj+ [5C]. 2nd Decademon. Rt-1:[723] Batrachian mutations (and frog-plagues). Rt-2:[72563] Cans of worms (vermophobic hysteria, propagation by division). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-25. Ababbatok (Abracadabra). Regenerator. Pitch Ana-2 Net-Span 7::4 Cyclic Chronodemon of Suspended Decay. Shadows Hold-Current Decadology. C/tp-#2, Mj+ [2C]. Rt-1:[4187] Frankensteinian experimentation (reanimations, golems). Rt-2:[45187] Mn. Purifications, amphibious cycles (and healing of wounds). Rt-3:[7254] Mj. Sustenance (smoke visions).
Mesh-26. Papatakoo (Pataku) Upholder. Pitch Cth-6 Net-Span 7::5 Cyclic Chronodemon of Calendric Time. Prowls Hold-Current Decadology. C/tp-#2, Mj- [2S]. Rt-1:[54187] Mn. Ultimate success (perseverance, blood sacrifice). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[725] Mj. Rituals becoming nature.
Mesh-27. Bobobja (Bubbles, Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies)). Heavy Atmosphere Pitch Cth-5 Net-Span 7::6 Amphidemon of Teeming Pestilence. 7th Phase-limit Decadology. C/tp-#5, Mj- [5S]. Rt-1:[7236] Strange lights in the swamp (dragonflies, ET frog-cults). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[7256] Swarmachines (lost harvests).
Mesh-28. Minommo. Webmaker. Pitch Cth-1 Net-Span 8::0 Amphidemon of Submergance. 8th Door (Limbo) [Neptune] Lumbar Decadology. C/tp-#7, Mj- [7S]. Rt-1:[890] Shamanic voyage (dream sorcery and mitochondrial chatter).
Mesh-29. Mur Mur (Murrumur, Mu(mu)). Dream-Serpent. Pitch Null Net-Span 8::1 Syzygetic Chronodemon of the Deep Ones. Feeds Surge-Current. Rt-0:[X] Oceanic sensation (gilled-unlife and spinal-regressions).
Mesh-30. Nammamad. Mirroracle. Pitch Ana-1 Net-Span 8::2 Cyclic Chronodemon of Subterranean Commerce. Shadows Surge-Current.Ciphers Gt-28 Decadology. C/tp-#1, Mj+ [1C]. 3rd Decademon Rt-1:[2718] Voodoo in cyberspace (cthulhoid traffic). Rt-2:[275418] Mn. Completion as final collapse (heat-death, degenerative psychoses). [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-3:[8172] Mj. Emergences (and things washed-up on beaches).
Mesh-31. Mummumix (Mix-Up). The Mist-Crawler. Pitch Ana-2. Net-Span 8::3 Amphidemon of Insidious Fog (Nyarlathotep) Decadology. C/tp-#4, Mj+ [4C]. Rt-1:[81723] Ocean storms (and xenocommunication on the bacterial plane). Rt-2:[8172563] Diseases from outer-space (oankali medicine). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-32. Numko (Old Nuk). Keeper of Old Terrors. Pitch Ana-3. Net-Span 8::4 Cyclic Chronodemon of Autochthony. Prowls Sink-Current Decadology. C/tp-#3, Mn+ [3H]. Rt-1:[418] Necrospeleology (abysmal patience rewarded). Rt-2:[4518] Mn. Subduction (and carnivorous fish). Rt-3:[817254] Mj. Vulcanism (and bacterial intelligence).
Mesh-33. Muntuk (Manta, Manitou). Desert Swimmer. Pitch Cth-5 Net-Span 8::5 Cyclic Chronodemon of Arid Seabeds. Shadows Sink-Current. Decadology. C/tp-#3, Mn- [3D]. Rt-1:[5418] Mn. Ancient rivers. [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[81725] Mj. Cloud-vaults and oppressive tension (protection during monsoon)
Mesh-34. Mommoljo (Mama Jo). Alien Mother. Pitch Cth-4. Net-Span 8::6 Amphidemon of Xenogenesis Decadology. C/tp-#4, Mj- [4S]. Rt-1:[817236] Cosmobacterial exogermination. [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-2:[817256] Extraterrestrial residues (including alien DNA segments).
Mesh-35. Mombbo. Tentacle Face (Fishy-princess). Pitch Cth-3 Net-Span 8::7 Cyclic Chronodemon of Hybridity. Prowls Surge-Current 8th Phase-limit. Decadology. C/tp-#1, Mj- [1S]. Rt-1:[718] Ophidian transmutation (palaeopythons). Rt-2:[725418] Mn. Surreptitious colonization [+1 sub-Rt]. Rt-3:[817] Mj. Surface-amnesia (old fishwives tales).
Mesh-36. Uttunul. Seething Void (clicks Gt-36) Pitch Null Net-Span 9::0 Syzygetic Xenodemon of Atonality. Feeds and Prowls Plex-Current, Haunts Gt-45 9th Door (Cthelll) [Pluto], Sacrum Rt-0:[X] Crossing the iron-ocean (plutonics)
Mesh-37. Tutagool (Yettuk). The Tattered Ghoul. Pitch Ana-1. Net-Span 9::1 Amphidemon of Punctuality. Decadology. C/tp-#7, Mn+ [7H]. 4th Decademon Rt-1:[189] The dark arts, rusting iron, tattooing (one-way ticket to Hell).
Mesh-38. Unnunddo (The False Nun). Double-Undoing. Pitch Ana-2. Net-Span 9::2 Amphidemon of Endless Uncasing (onion-skin horror) Decadology. C/tp-#8, Mn+ [8H]. Rt-1:[27189] Crypt-traffic (and centipede simulations). Rt-2:[2754189] Communication-grids (telecom webs, shamanic metallism).[+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-39. Ununuttix (Tick-Tock). Particle Clocks. Pitch Ana-3 Net-Span 9::3 Chaotic Xenodemon of Absolute Coincidence Rt-0:[?] Numerical connection through the absence of any link
Mesh-40. Ununak (Nuke). Blind Catastrophe. Pitch Ana-4. Net-Span 9::4 Amphidemon of Convulsions. Decadology. C/tp-#9, Mn+ [9H]. Rt-1:[4189] Secrets of the blacksmiths. Rt-2:[45189] Subterranean impulses.
Mesh-41. Tukutu (Killer-Kate). Cosmotraumatics. Pitch Cth-4 Net Span 9::5 Amphidemon of Death-Strokes. Decadology. C/tp-#9, Mn- [9D]. Rt-1:[54189] Crash-signals (barkerian scarring). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-42. Unnutchi (Outch, T'ai Chi). Tachyonic immobility (slow vortex). Pitch Cth-3. Net-Span 9::6 Chaotic Xenodemon of Coiling Outsideness. Rt-0:[?] Asymmetric zygopoise (and cybernetic anomalies).
Mesh-43. Nuttubab (Nut-Cracker). Mimetic Anorganism. Pitch Cth-2 Net-Span 9::7 Amphidemon of Metaloid Unlife. Decadology. C/tp-#8, Mn- [8D]. Rt-1:[7189] Lunacies (iron in the blood). Rt-2:[7254189] Dragon-lines (terrestrial electromagnetism). [+1 sub-Rt].
Mesh-44. Ummnu (Om, Omni, Amen, Omen). Ultimate Inconsequence. Pitch Cth-1 Net-Span 9::8 Amphidemon of Earth-Screams. Haunts Gt-36 9th Phase-limit Decadology. C/tp-#7, Mn- [7D]. Rt-0:[89] Crust-friction (anorganic tension).
"
My system is:
1. Zeus Gas Jupiter Force
2. Poseidon Liquid Moon Generating Information
3. Hades Solid Saturn Completion History
4. Hermes Plasma Mercury Change Interaction
5. Aphrodite Growth Venus Biology Beauty Ideals
6. Apollo Deconstruction Mars Sound Atomizing
7. Cronus (King) Authority Sun
8. Astraios (Wizard) Mapping Stars
9. Dionysus (Free Person) Renewal Return
10. Theos Pan Daimon (God) Totality
11. Aggelos (Messenger) Significance
12. Heros (Action) Process
The numbers are significant also. They repeat after 3, so each new 3 are versions of the last 3 and mixtures of those elements
1. Air Boss
2. Water Wizard
3. Nature Judge
(The qualities seem to change and mix up here)
4. 1 Air + 2 Water = Lightning (Most Like Water)
5. 2 Water + 3 Earth = Growth (Most Like Earth)
6. 3 Earth + 1 Air = Deconstruction, Sound (Most Like Air)
7. Most Like Air (3&6)
8. Most Like Water (2&4)
9. Most Like Earth (1&5)
10. Most Like Air (1+0)
11. Most Like Water (1+1)
12. Most Like Earth (1+3)
These three repeat forever, and are all one anyway, the aspects of the Hero, the Teacher, the Judge, with different nuances to the level or way or degree they seem to present at symbolically.
Hilarious that I just looked up at the earlier post and was apparently on the toilet (The White Throne) when I wrote that too.
Also, the names associated with each number can be replaced with others that fit well. For example:
1. Hera
2. Metis
3. Hecate
4. Athena
5. Artemis
6. Persephone
In a lot of cases, symbols for Athena seem to show up as Zeus symbols, symbols of Persephone and Artemis switch between 5 and 6 when Persephone is in life mode or death mode in stories. Athena switches between 1 and 2 and 4 and 5.
The collection of themes remains pretty neatly associated with each other, but people's stories and uses switch things around, like they started to associate Apollo with the Sun after a very long history associated with Mars all around the world.
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: The Gods
In the case of the mockery hyperstition thing, a lot of that seems like they weren't being serious in most ways, possibly any ways, but still managed to come up with some things that have precedence at least, and in other cases are "real" and useful, even as they are made up.
For example "Lurgo" is viable, Duoddod is not very useful, neither is Doogu, but Yix is (Ixix isn't). Ixigool and Ixidod aren't useful names, but "King Sid" is. Krako isn't, Sukugool almost is as Sukkal.
Skoodu isn't but is moreso as Skotha.
Skarkix isn't but is as Shax and Scox.
Tokhatto isn't but "Top Cat" is.
Tukkamu isn't but Ti Amo is.
Kuttadid (Kitty) isn't.
Tikkitix (Tickler) isn't.
Katak isn't so much as Khattak(a).
Tchu (Tchanul) isn't as much as Tkhanna and Tkhannu.
Djungo is pretty close to something and is pretty viable, that being Django and Shango:
"
The name Django, famously associated with jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt, has multiple etymological origins and meanings. It's primarily a Romani name, meaning "I awake" or "I awaken". However, it's also linked to the Slavic name Janko or Janez, meaning "God is gracious". The name gained prominence through Reinhardt, who was given it as a Romani nickname, while his official name was Jean. The "D" in Django is silent, as it's the French spelling of the Romani "J" sound.
"
Djuddha (Judd Dread) isn't, but:
https://twinpeaks.fandom.com/wiki/Judy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udug
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/yuddha
Mainly only Yuddha out of these has any potency. "Udug" is nigh meaningless, nothing was pronounced the way people are pronouncing it, plus it isn't anything anyway by that name.
"
This description mostly glosses over what the udug actually looks like, instead focusing more on its fearsome supernatural abilities.[1] All the characteristics ascribed to the "evil udug" here are common features that are frequently attributed to all different kinds of ancient Mesopotamian demons: a dark shadow, absence of light surrounding it, poison, and a deafening voice.[1] Other descriptions of the udug are not consistent with this one and often contradict it.[4] Konstantopoulos notes that "the udug is defined by what it is not: the demon is nameless and formless, even in its early appearances."[1] An incantation from the Old Babylonian Period (c. 1830 – c. 1531 BC) defines the udug as "the one who, from the beginning, was not called by name... the one who never appeared with a form." One of the udug could be Hanbi. In Sumerian and Akkadian mythology (and Mesopotamian mythology in general) Hanbi or Hanpa (more commonly known in western text) was the god of evil, god of all evil forces and the father of Pazuzu. Aside from his relationship with Pazuzu, very little is known of this figure.[1]
"
Hanbi is viable, it has potency, it is real, but Udug is next to nothing, pretty useless, delusional.
Djynxx (Ching, The Jinn) is not viable, but Jinx is.
Tchakki (Chuckles) isn't.
Tchattuk (One Eyed Jack, Djatka), isn't, Balor and Balgyr are, as is Jack and Chac.
Puppo (The Pup), almost actually, as "pupa (from Latin pupa 'doll'; pl. : pupae) is the life stage of some insects undergoing transformation between immature and mature stages.", Larva, and Maggot.
Bubbamu (Bubs) isn't but Bub and Bab and Babay are.
Oddubb (Odba) mainly isn't but "Odiba" is, Odaiba can be, Ogma, Ogima, Odudua/Ododuwa, Oba all can be viable, but Oddubb isn't much, Odba is closer to something that people have been saying lots at least.
Pabbakis (Pabzix) no, plus they seem to think "ix" makes for an appropriate name of these things they've made up for fun.
Ababbatok (Abracadabra) might be something, but as Abatok rather than Ababba tok.
Papatakoo (Pataku), nothing, but Pratiku is.
Bobobja (Bubbles, Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies)), Bobobja and Bubbles aren't useful but Beelzebub is viable and potent.
Minommo is alright, it connects to some real things closely enough to seem of use.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min_(god)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemosyne
Mur Mur (Murrumur, Mu(mu)) isn't that much of use, but this is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momus
Nammamad. Mirroracle. would seem better to me as Nanad and Miracle and Mirror Oracle.
Mummumix (Mix-Up), the word Mummy is more useful than this.
Numko (Old Nuk), Numko isn't anything, Numiko is better (Numi is Japanese for Wave and Ko is Child according to what is written online), Nuk is viable.
Muntuk (Manta, Manitou), Muntuk is like Nuktuk from the cartoon Avatar, but Manta and Manitou are both viable.
Mommoljo (Mama Jo), Mommo and Olja may be viable, but Mommoljo leads nowhere.
Mombbo like Mambo is real and viable:
"
The word "mambo" has roots in Kikongo, a Bantu language spoken in Central Africa, where "mambo" (or "mambu") means "conversation with the gods". It also has connections to Haitian Creole, where "manbo" refers to a voodoo priestess. In Cuba, the word became associated with a popular dance and music style, likely influenced by the African diaspora and the cultural exchange in the Caribbean.
"
Uttunul as Unutul is viable, as is Uttu and Nul as Nool and Null, but Uttunul isn't as potent as any of those, though still has something a little bit.
Tutagool (Yettuk), Yettuk is real, Tut and Tot and even Tuta are something, but Tutagool isn't, and their use of "gool" is irritating.
"
The word "ghoul" originates from the Arabic word "ghūl" (غُول), which means "to seize" or "to grab". This term was later adopted into English, appearing in literature around the late 18th century. The Arabic "ghūl" described a demonic creature from folklore that was believed to rob graves and feast on corpses.
"
Ghul is viable by itself.
Unnunddo (The False Nun), nothing, except bringing to mind the new evil nun movies who use the name Valak for the demon with the appearance of a nun, and that name is viable.
Ununuttix (Tick-Tock), there is the ix again, as if this was all generated by a name generator, and only "Tick-Tock" has any potency.
Ununak (Nuke), both of these are viable, as is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshushinak
Tukutu (Killer-Kate)
Unnutchi (Outch, T'ai Chi), nothing:
"
There's also the Japanese word "un-chi" (うんち), which means "poop" or "feces".
"
Orochi is viable.
Tai Ji is God.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechua_people
Nuttubab (Nut-Cracker), nothing, but the Nut-Cracker and Nut-Cracker Soldier do have some potency as a symbols.
Ummnu (Om, Omni, Amen, Omen), not Ummnu as much as Ummu, and then Om, Omni, Amen, and Omen are all very potent.
So what makes something potent or not?
It seems that there are people, maybe like "Chaos Magicians", who really think "Man Made Up God(s), so we can too!" and that they have the power to make these things and give them power, as if they have power to give to things. It is a modern way of thinking probably, and not something that I actually believe in, nor is it what I mean when I may talk about investing meaning into certain things or giving things a better meaning. I don't think man invented anything that is "real", but that they were referring to things they were experiencing in their lives and reality, which were not literally anthropomorphic bodied individuals but aspects of reality, manifesting and indicating an intelligence behind what exists and occurs. Even if that is not what anyone thought, that is how I take it and use it and test it.
Coming up with silly names that also connect to pretty useless ideas and themes does nothing for communication or communicating to that intelligence, it is counter-intelligent, nonsense, "barbaric speech", babble.
If the person made up a designation, like Ixgool and used that to refer to something that really happens or can be experienced and is something people know about and relate to, maybe it would be more useful, although the name may be irritating by including these ultimately defamatory J*d*o-Christian slanderous ideas and their sick complexes into the mix by their attempts to demonize life itself in their jealousy and in favor of their own totally fabricated deity, possibly one of the most famous made up things ever, YHWH, a total Non-God that has no existence or reality whatsoever, the name supposedly even indicating such "I Will Become What I Will Become"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
"
The name may be derived from a verb that means 'to be', 'to exist', 'to cause to become', or 'to come to pass'.[2]
"
"
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions based on what one hopes to be true, rather than on evidence or reality. It involves imagining a desired outcome as if it were already a reality, even when there's little or no reason to believe it will happen. Essentially, it's substituting what one wants to be true for what is actually true.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Desire over evidence:
Wishful thinking prioritizes desires and hopes over factual evidence, reason, or logic.
Unrealistic expectations:
It leads to forming beliefs about unlikely or impossible situations as if they were attainable.
Examples:
A person might believe they'll win the lottery after buying tickets for years, despite the low odds. Or, someone might think a relationship is going well based on their feelings, even if their partner is showing signs of disinterest.
Consequences:
Wishful thinking can lead to poor decision-making, missed opportunities, and a disconnect from reality.
"
They believed that they could make a God out of their desires, which were covetous and g*n*c*d*l from the get go according to their book.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1035512 ... 408670455/
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/25/43/#gsc.tab=0
"
Have you seen (one) who takes (as) his god his own desire? Then would you be over him a guardian?
"
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/25/ ... #gsc.tab=0
"
his own desire
hawāhu
هَوَاهُ
ه و ى
"
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... a-539.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/25/ ... #gsc.tab=0
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/53/23/#gsc.tab=0
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/53/ ... #gsc.tab=0
"
Not they (are) except names you have named them, you and your forefathers, not has sent down Allah for it any authority. Not they follow except assumption and what desire the(ir) souls. And certainly has come to them from their Lord the guidance.
"
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1489.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1481.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1753.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1044.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... a-508.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/occult/comment ... heal_from/
"
I wanted to make a talisman that would assist in avoiding and healing from the absolute onslaught we deal with daily from politics, the news, and social media.
The raw silver Ingot was burnt with a paper petition for resolve and resilience. Quenched red hot in a solution of calming herbs, Murray and Lanman Florida Water, hematite, and clear quartz. Forged to shape and engraved with it's seal. Manually patinaed
"
This is a new religion, the approach I think is coming from a totally different place than the prior cultural religions and arts.
"
bumbarlunchi6
•
5d ago
What sigil is it? I am still learning, sorry if this is a stupid question
Upvote
6
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/with-hidden-noise avatar
with-hidden-noise
OP
•
5d ago
Not a stupid question at all!
I made all the sigils. The gist is the center one represents clarity and calmness and the outer ones represent the things to be protected from.
Upvote
14
Downvote
Reply
reply
bumbarlunchi6
•
5d ago
Oh nice! Did you use any particular system for inspiration and such? Thanks for such a kind answer
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/with-hidden-noise avatar
with-hidden-noise
OP
•
5d ago
I tend to run pretty eclectic with my inspiration. The petition work is pretty Greek, the quenching is alchemical, the suffumigation is Egyptian inspired etc
The sigil/seal work is chaos magick based for the most part, but inspired by classic grimoires.
"
cwamoon
•
4d ago
W.o.w.
The calmness that radiated through my screen just now...
Do you do commissioned works, or per chance would you be willing to sell a talisman like this to me? Pretty pleaseee
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/with-hidden-noise avatar
with-hidden-noise
OP
•
4d ago
Thank you! I saw your chat request and will give you details there
"
"
Daleth434
•
5d ago
Then the problem is not media, it’s stress. My bugbear is poor grammar; half the time, I really don’t know what people are talking about, because they don’t know how to construct a sentence. Why we find things stressful is more important than what it is.
I hope that you are more successful than I in transcending such barriers. One day I shall be standing at the Pearly Gates and St Peter will push them ajar for me, and I will say, “Nope, I’m not going in until everyone there can tell me the difference between the Subjunctive Mood and the Passive Future Continuous Tense”.
The solution, I fear, is not to be remain stressed and miserable until every English speaker can speak English. Oh well, I wish myself luck with that, and hope you have better.
Upvote
-7
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/Saintly-Mendicant-69 avatar
Saintly-Mendicant-69
•
5d ago
Yikes
"
https://www.reddit.com/r/witchcraft/com ... _you_want/
"
Chaos magic lacks any certificates of participation. You achieve what you set out to do or you have failed. Success could be lasting apotheosis or it could be bedding your secretary. This only looks like elitism to failures. To scientists, it looks like science.
"
"
kalizoid313
•
2y ago
For me, the attraction of Chaos magic is its recognition of investigation, innovation, and experimentation in domains often excluded by generally accepted dominant religions, spiritualities, and occulture. The notion that new ways might turn out to be just as--or even more--fruitful than old ways. (I am not the only one who has wondered why a ritual of my design and performance and figures could not be just as good as a ritual from somebody else's old black book.)
Craft and Magic including Modern Mythologies and understandings.
I don't know if following that sort of path is "doing what you want." A scribble is not always a sigil. But, sometimes, for some practitioners, a scribble might be. I guess that I won't close the gate on that kind of possibility. Because...Chaos...
"
"
SpiderCricket13
•
2y ago
I have been practicing for 30 odd years, and still don’t understand the difference between eclectic and chaos witch, and witchcraft generally. I rather think that unless you pick an exclusive path, it’s all do what you want, if it works, keep it in your practice, if it doesn’t, it’s not on your path. I may be wrong?
Upvote
16
Downvote
NotApplicableMC
•
2y ago
•
Edited 2y ago
Eclectic is more like “borrowing” already established traditions & practices, combing and mixing how you want to make something new. Usually based in already established norms.
Chaos is just doing literally anything that springs to mind and seeing if it sticks. Like shouting “GO GO power rangers!” at your plants every morning to make them grow.
Obviously the two ideas have a lot of overlap and you can be both.
Edit: to clarify, as a chaos witch you can practise traditions (like ceremonial magick), but as the post is trying to say, chaos magick is results-driven magick first & foremost. So you can do anything you want, but you stick with what works and drop whatever doesn’t.
"
These people "magically" get on my nerves, just seeing their writing is so annoying to me, I can't relate at all.
They are totally different, because they don't seem to care about religion really, they are into something else ultimately, they approach from "aesthetics" and "cosplaying" first, and a desire for power instead of awe, they are not worshippers or worshipful, they are pretentious, sacreligious, and basically evil filth as far as I can tell, unclean, impious, not true devotees of anything but their hallucinations and infatuation with the idea of themselves being powerful and prestigious by deluding themselves, and rarely are they ever even clean or attractive, they are often mentally ill and grimey and have terrible taste.
"
greeneyedwench
•
2y ago
I'm not sure what book this is, but the author sounds like a piece of work. Fat shaming while encouraging workplace affairs, hooray?
It's my understanding that it doesn't mean "doing whatever you want," it's more like doing whatever makes sense in your world even if it's not a traditionally religious or magical thing. Like if Captain America is the kind of figure you always wanted to worship as a god, why not do it? (I didn't name Loki or Thor because they really are gods, but if you're worshipping something closer to the Marvel versions, I'd call that chaos magick too.)
Upvote
10
Downvote
gabkins
•
2y ago
I like your take on it! And I was equally puzzled/annoyed by what you've artfully referred to as "Fat shaming while encouraging workplace affairs, hooray?." lol. oof.
great work author on using magick to have a workplace affair, what a SUCCESSFUL chaos magician you are. *amused chuckle*
"
Captain America can be broken down into different symbols that can be made to refer to things in reality, but Captain America as he appears in stories is not anything like "a God" of any value, and worshipping Captain America "as is" would amount to nothing. Red Skull, again, is more potent symbolically and as broken down symbols rather than the character.
This is subjectivism, and it has ruined society, culture, and spirituality for a few generations now.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html
Lets see what the pure evil Ayn Rand Lexicon says:
"
Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe. (This is the "mixed," moderate or middle-of-the-road version of subjectivism. Pure or "extreme" subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature.)
In metaphysics, "subjectivism" is the view that reality (the "object") is dependent on human consciousness (the "subject"). In epistemology, as a result, subjectivists hold that a man need not concern himself with the facts of reality; instead, to arrive at knowledge or truth, he need merely turn his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to their dictates. According to the most widespread form of subjectivism, the elements which possess this power are feelings.
In essence, subjectivism is the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts, and therefore men's primary tool of cognition. If men feel it, declares the subjectivist, that makes it so.
The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of objectivity—an attitude which rests on the view that reality exists independent of human consciousness; that the role of the subject is not to create the object, but to perceive it; and that knowledge of reality can be acquired only by directing one's attention outward to the facts.
The subjectivist denies that there is any such thing as "the truth" on a given question, the truth which corresponds to the facts. On his view, truth varies from consciousness to consciousness as the processes or contents of consciousness vary; the same statement may be true for one consciousness (or one type of consciousness) and false for another. The virtually infallible sign of the subjectivist is his refusal to say, of a statement he accepts: "It is true"; instead, he says: "It is true—for me (or for us)." There is no truth, only truth relative to an individual or a group—truth for me, for you, for him, for her, for us, for them.
Your teachers, the mystics of both schools, have reversed causality in their consciousness, then strive to reverse it in existence. They take their emotions as a cause, and their mind as a passive effect. They make their emotions their tool for perceiving reality. They hold their desires as an irreducible primary, as a fact superseding all facts. An honest man does not desire until he has identified the object of his desire. He says: "It is, therefore I want it." They say: "I want it, therefore it is."
They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness—they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.
There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question: whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man's feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism—the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant's system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.
Later philosophers accepted Kant's fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind's structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained—as Kant had said—then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.
The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. On this issue, as on many others, the Nazis follow the Marxists, but substitute race for class.
Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it "arbitrary postulate" or "subjective choice" or "emotional commitment")—and the battle is only over the question of whose whim: one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. Whatever else they may disagree about, today's moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reason—mind—reality.
If you wonder why the world is now collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell, this is the reason.
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics—and of all ethical history—that you must challenge.
There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective.
The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man's consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, "intuitions," or whims, and that it is merely an "arbitrary postulate" or an "emotional commitment."
The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality.
Ethical subjectivism, which holds that a desire or a whim is an irreducible moral primary, that every man is entitled to any desire he might feel like asserting, that all desires have equal moral validity, and that the only way men can get along together is by giving in to anything and "compromising" with anyone. It is not hard to see who would profit and who would lose by such a doctrine.
The subjectivist theory of ethics is, strictly speaking, not a theory, but a negation of ethics. And more: it is a negation of reality, a negation not merely of man's existence, but of all existence. Only the concept of a fluid, plastic, indeterminate, Heraclitean universe could permit anyone to think or to preach that man needs no objective principles of action—that reality gives him a blank check on values—that anything he cares to pick as the good or the evil, will do—that a man's whim is a valid moral standard, and that the only question is how to get away with it. The existential monument to this theory is the present state of our culture.
A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk.
"Something made by an artist" is not a definition of art. A beard and a vacant stare are not the defining characteristics of an artist.
"Something in a frame hung on a wall" is not a definition of painting.
"Something with a number of pages in a binding" is not a definition of literature.
"Something piled together" is not a definition of sculpture. "Something made of sounds produced by anything" is not a definition of music.
"Something glued on a flat surface" is not a definition of any art. There is no art that uses glue as a medium. Blades of grass glued on a sheet of paper to represent grass might be good occupational therapy for retarded children—though I doubt it—but it is not art.
"Because I felt like it" is not a definition or validation of anything.
There is no place for whim in any human activity—if it is to be regarded as human. There is no place for the unknowable, the unintelligible, the undefinable, the non-objective in any human product.
The clearest symptom by which one can recognize [the amoralist] is his total inability to judge himself, his actions, or his work by any sort of standard. The normal pattern of self-appraisal requires a reference to some abstract value or virtue—e.g., "I am good because I am rational," "I am good because I am honest," even the second-hander's notion of "I am good because people like me." Regardless of whether the value-standards involved are true or false, these examples imply the recognition of an essential moral principle: that one's own value has to be earned.
The amoralist's implicit pattern of self-appraisal (which he seldom identifies or admits) is: "I am good because it's me."
Beyond the age of about three to five (i.e., beyond the perceptual level of mental development), this is not an expression of pride or self-esteem, but of the opposite: of a vacuum—of a stagnant, arrested mentality confessing its impotence to achieve any personal value or virtue.
Do not confuse this pattern with psychological subjectivism. A psychological subjectivist is unable fully to identify his values or to prove their objective validity, but he may be profoundly consistent and loyal to them in practice (though with terrible psycho-epistemological difficulty). The amoralist does not hold subjective values; he does not hold any values. The implicit pattern of all his estimates is: "It's good because I like it"—"It's right because I did it"—"It's true because I want it to be true." What is the "I" in these statements? A physical hulk driven by chronic anxiety.
[The amoralist] will walk over piles of corpses—in order to assert himself? no—in order to hide (or fill) the nagging inner vacuum left by his aborted self.
The grim joke on mankind is the fact that he is held up as a symbol of selfishness.
The main characteristic of this mentality is a special kind of passivity: not passivity as such and not across-the-board, but passivity beyond a certain limit—i.e., passivity in regard to the process of conceptualization and, therefore, in regard to fundamental principles. It is a mentality which decided, at a certain point of development, that it knows enough and does not care to look further. What does it accept as "enough"? The immediately given, directly perceivable concretes of its background. . . .
To grasp and deal with such concretes, a human being needs a certain degree of conceptual development, a process which the brain of an animal cannot perform. But after the initial feat of learning to speak, a child can counterfeit this process, by memorization and imitation. The anti-conceptual mentality stops on this level of development—on the first levels of abstractions, which identify perceptual material consisting predominantly of physical objects—and does not choose to take the next, crucial, fully volitional step: the higher levels of abstraction from abstractions, which cannot be learned by imitation. (See my book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) . . .
The anti-conceptual mentality takes most things as irreducible primaries and regards them as "self-evident." It treats concepts as if they were (memorized) percepts; it treats abstractions as if they were perceptual concretes. To such a mentality, everything is the given: the passage of time, the four seasons, the institution of marriage, the weather, the breeding of children, a flood, a fire, an earthquake, a revolution, a book are phenomena of the same order. The distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made is not merely unknown to this mentality, it is incommunicable.
[This type of mentality] has learned to speak, but has never grasped the process of conceptualization. Concepts, to him, are merely some sort of code signals employed by other people for some inexplicable reason, signals that have no relation to reality or to himself. He treats concepts as if they were percepts, and their meaning changes with any change of circumstances. Whatever he learns or happens to retain is treated, in his mind, as if it had always been there, as if it were an item of direct awareness, with no memory of how he acquired it—as a random store of unprocessed material that comes and goes at the mercy of chance . . . He does not seek knowledge—he "exposes himself" to "experience," hoping, in effect, that it will push something into his mind; if nothing happens, he feels with self-righteous rancor that there is nothing he can do about it. Mental action, i.e., mental effort—any sort of processing, identifying, organizing, integrating, critical evaluation or control of his mental content—is an alien realm.
This mentality is not the product of ignorance (nor is it caused by lack of intelligence): it is self-made, i.e., self-arrested.
In the brain of an anti-conceptual person, the process of integration is largely replaced by a process of association. What his subconscious stores and automatizes is not ideas, but an indiscriminate accumulation of sundry concretes, random facts, and unidentified feelings, piled into unlabeled mental file folders. This works, up to a certain point—i.e., so long as such a person deals with other persons whose folders are stuffed similarly, and thus no search through the entire filing system is ever required. Within such limits, the person can be active and willing to work hard. . . .
A person of this mentality may uphold some abstract principles or profess some intellectual convictions (without remembering where or how he picked them up). But if one asks him what he means by a given idea, he will not be able to answer. If one asks him the reasons of his convictions, one will discover that his convictions are a thin, fragile film floating over a vacuum, like an oil slick in empty space—and one will be shocked by the number of questions it had never occurred to him to ask.
He seems able to understand a discussion or a rational argument, sometimes even on an abstract, theoretical level. He is able to participate, to agree or disagree after what appears to be a critical examination of the issue. But the next time one meets him, the conclusions he reached are gone from his mind, as if the discussion had never occurred even though he remembers it: he remembers the event, i.e., a discussion, not its intellectual content.
It is beside the point to accuse him of hypocrisy or lying (though some part of both is necessarily involved). His problem is much worse than that: he was sincere, he meant what he said in and for that moment. But it ended with that moment. Nothing happens in his mind to an idea he accepts or rejects; there is no processing, no integration, no application to himself, his actions or his concerns; he is unable to use it or even to retain it. Ideas, i.e., abstractions, have no reality to him; abstractions involve the past and the future, as well as the present; nothing is fully real to him except the present. Concepts, in his mind, become percepts—percepts of people uttering sounds; and percepts end when the stimuli vanish. When he uses words, his mental operations are closer to those of a parrot than of a human being. In the strict sense of the word, he has not learned to speak.
But there is one constant in his mental flux. The subconscious is an integrating mechanism; when left without conscious control, it goes on integrating on its own—and, like an automatic blender, his subconscious squeezes its clutter of trash to produce a single basic emotion: fear.
It is the fundamentals of philosophy (particularly, of ethics) that an anti-conceptual person dreads above all else. To understand and to apply them requires a long conceptual chain, which he has made his mind incapable of holding beyond the first, rudimentary links. If his professed beliefs—i.e., the rules and slogans of his group—are challenged, he feels his consciousness dissolving in fog. Hence, his fear of outsiders. The word "outsiders," to him, means the whole wide world beyond the confines of his village or town or gang—the world of all those people who do not live by his "rules." He does not know why he feels that outsiders are a deadly threat to him and why they fill him with helpless terror. The threat is not existential, but psycho-epistemological: to deal with them requires that he rise above his "rules" to the level of abstract principles. He would die rather than attempt it.
"Protection from outsiders" is the benefit he seeks in clinging to his group. What the group demands in return is obedience to its rules, which he is eager to obey: those rules are his protection—from the dreaded realm of abstract thought.
Racism is an obvious manifestation of the anti-conceptual mentality. So is xenophobia—the fear or hatred of foreigners ("outsiders"). So is any caste system, which prescribes a man's status (i.e., assigns him to a tribe) according to his birth; a caste system is perpetuated by a special kind of snobbishness (i.e., group loyalty) not merely among the aristocrats, but, perhaps more fiercely, among the commoners or even the serfs, who like to "know their place" and to guard it jealously against the outsiders from above or from below. So is guild socialism. So is any kind of ancestor worship or of family "solidarity" (the family including uncles, aunts and third cousins). So is any criminal gang.
Tribalism . . . is the best name to give to all the group manifestations of the anti-conceptual mentality.
Observe that today's resurgence of tribalism is not a product of the lower classes—of the poor, the helpless, the ignorant—but of the intellectuals, the college-educated "elitists" (which is a purely tribalistic term). Observe the proliferation of grotesque herds or gangs—hippies, yippies, beatniks, peaceniks, Women's Libs, Gay Libs, Jesus Freaks, Earth Children—which are not tribes, but shifting aggregates of people desperately seeking tribal "protection."
The common denominator of all such gangs is the belief in motion (mass demonstrations), not action—in chanting, not arguing—in demanding, not achieving—in feeling, not thinking—in denouncing "outsiders," not in pursuing values—in focusing only on the "now," the "today" without a "tomorrow"—in seeking to return to "nature," to "the earth," to the mud, to physical labor, i.e., to all the things which a perceptual mentality is able to handle. You don't see advocates of reason and science clogging a street in the belief that using their bodies to stop traffic, will solve any problem.
"
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tribalism.html
For example "Lurgo" is viable, Duoddod is not very useful, neither is Doogu, but Yix is (Ixix isn't). Ixigool and Ixidod aren't useful names, but "King Sid" is. Krako isn't, Sukugool almost is as Sukkal.
Skoodu isn't but is moreso as Skotha.
Skarkix isn't but is as Shax and Scox.
Tokhatto isn't but "Top Cat" is.
Tukkamu isn't but Ti Amo is.
Kuttadid (Kitty) isn't.
Tikkitix (Tickler) isn't.
Katak isn't so much as Khattak(a).
Tchu (Tchanul) isn't as much as Tkhanna and Tkhannu.
Djungo is pretty close to something and is pretty viable, that being Django and Shango:
"
The name Django, famously associated with jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt, has multiple etymological origins and meanings. It's primarily a Romani name, meaning "I awake" or "I awaken". However, it's also linked to the Slavic name Janko or Janez, meaning "God is gracious". The name gained prominence through Reinhardt, who was given it as a Romani nickname, while his official name was Jean. The "D" in Django is silent, as it's the French spelling of the Romani "J" sound.
"
Djuddha (Judd Dread) isn't, but:
https://twinpeaks.fandom.com/wiki/Judy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udug
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/yuddha
Mainly only Yuddha out of these has any potency. "Udug" is nigh meaningless, nothing was pronounced the way people are pronouncing it, plus it isn't anything anyway by that name.
"
This description mostly glosses over what the udug actually looks like, instead focusing more on its fearsome supernatural abilities.[1] All the characteristics ascribed to the "evil udug" here are common features that are frequently attributed to all different kinds of ancient Mesopotamian demons: a dark shadow, absence of light surrounding it, poison, and a deafening voice.[1] Other descriptions of the udug are not consistent with this one and often contradict it.[4] Konstantopoulos notes that "the udug is defined by what it is not: the demon is nameless and formless, even in its early appearances."[1] An incantation from the Old Babylonian Period (c. 1830 – c. 1531 BC) defines the udug as "the one who, from the beginning, was not called by name... the one who never appeared with a form." One of the udug could be Hanbi. In Sumerian and Akkadian mythology (and Mesopotamian mythology in general) Hanbi or Hanpa (more commonly known in western text) was the god of evil, god of all evil forces and the father of Pazuzu. Aside from his relationship with Pazuzu, very little is known of this figure.[1]
"
Hanbi is viable, it has potency, it is real, but Udug is next to nothing, pretty useless, delusional.
Djynxx (Ching, The Jinn) is not viable, but Jinx is.
Tchakki (Chuckles) isn't.
Tchattuk (One Eyed Jack, Djatka), isn't, Balor and Balgyr are, as is Jack and Chac.
Puppo (The Pup), almost actually, as "pupa (from Latin pupa 'doll'; pl. : pupae) is the life stage of some insects undergoing transformation between immature and mature stages.", Larva, and Maggot.
Bubbamu (Bubs) isn't but Bub and Bab and Babay are.
Oddubb (Odba) mainly isn't but "Odiba" is, Odaiba can be, Ogma, Ogima, Odudua/Ododuwa, Oba all can be viable, but Oddubb isn't much, Odba is closer to something that people have been saying lots at least.
Pabbakis (Pabzix) no, plus they seem to think "ix" makes for an appropriate name of these things they've made up for fun.
Ababbatok (Abracadabra) might be something, but as Abatok rather than Ababba tok.
Papatakoo (Pataku), nothing, but Pratiku is.
Bobobja (Bubbles, Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies)), Bobobja and Bubbles aren't useful but Beelzebub is viable and potent.
Minommo is alright, it connects to some real things closely enough to seem of use.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min_(god)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemosyne
Mur Mur (Murrumur, Mu(mu)) isn't that much of use, but this is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momus
Nammamad. Mirroracle. would seem better to me as Nanad and Miracle and Mirror Oracle.
Mummumix (Mix-Up), the word Mummy is more useful than this.
Numko (Old Nuk), Numko isn't anything, Numiko is better (Numi is Japanese for Wave and Ko is Child according to what is written online), Nuk is viable.
Muntuk (Manta, Manitou), Muntuk is like Nuktuk from the cartoon Avatar, but Manta and Manitou are both viable.
Mommoljo (Mama Jo), Mommo and Olja may be viable, but Mommoljo leads nowhere.
Mombbo like Mambo is real and viable:
"
The word "mambo" has roots in Kikongo, a Bantu language spoken in Central Africa, where "mambo" (or "mambu") means "conversation with the gods". It also has connections to Haitian Creole, where "manbo" refers to a voodoo priestess. In Cuba, the word became associated with a popular dance and music style, likely influenced by the African diaspora and the cultural exchange in the Caribbean.
"
Uttunul as Unutul is viable, as is Uttu and Nul as Nool and Null, but Uttunul isn't as potent as any of those, though still has something a little bit.
Tutagool (Yettuk), Yettuk is real, Tut and Tot and even Tuta are something, but Tutagool isn't, and their use of "gool" is irritating.
"
The word "ghoul" originates from the Arabic word "ghūl" (غُول), which means "to seize" or "to grab". This term was later adopted into English, appearing in literature around the late 18th century. The Arabic "ghūl" described a demonic creature from folklore that was believed to rob graves and feast on corpses.
"
Ghul is viable by itself.
Unnunddo (The False Nun), nothing, except bringing to mind the new evil nun movies who use the name Valak for the demon with the appearance of a nun, and that name is viable.
Ununuttix (Tick-Tock), there is the ix again, as if this was all generated by a name generator, and only "Tick-Tock" has any potency.
Ununak (Nuke), both of these are viable, as is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshushinak
Tukutu (Killer-Kate)
Unnutchi (Outch, T'ai Chi), nothing:
"
There's also the Japanese word "un-chi" (うんち), which means "poop" or "feces".
"
Orochi is viable.
Tai Ji is God.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechua_people
Nuttubab (Nut-Cracker), nothing, but the Nut-Cracker and Nut-Cracker Soldier do have some potency as a symbols.
Ummnu (Om, Omni, Amen, Omen), not Ummnu as much as Ummu, and then Om, Omni, Amen, and Omen are all very potent.
So what makes something potent or not?
It seems that there are people, maybe like "Chaos Magicians", who really think "Man Made Up God(s), so we can too!" and that they have the power to make these things and give them power, as if they have power to give to things. It is a modern way of thinking probably, and not something that I actually believe in, nor is it what I mean when I may talk about investing meaning into certain things or giving things a better meaning. I don't think man invented anything that is "real", but that they were referring to things they were experiencing in their lives and reality, which were not literally anthropomorphic bodied individuals but aspects of reality, manifesting and indicating an intelligence behind what exists and occurs. Even if that is not what anyone thought, that is how I take it and use it and test it.
Coming up with silly names that also connect to pretty useless ideas and themes does nothing for communication or communicating to that intelligence, it is counter-intelligent, nonsense, "barbaric speech", babble.
If the person made up a designation, like Ixgool and used that to refer to something that really happens or can be experienced and is something people know about and relate to, maybe it would be more useful, although the name may be irritating by including these ultimately defamatory J*d*o-Christian slanderous ideas and their sick complexes into the mix by their attempts to demonize life itself in their jealousy and in favor of their own totally fabricated deity, possibly one of the most famous made up things ever, YHWH, a total Non-God that has no existence or reality whatsoever, the name supposedly even indicating such "I Will Become What I Will Become"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
"
The name may be derived from a verb that means 'to be', 'to exist', 'to cause to become', or 'to come to pass'.[2]
"
"
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions based on what one hopes to be true, rather than on evidence or reality. It involves imagining a desired outcome as if it were already a reality, even when there's little or no reason to believe it will happen. Essentially, it's substituting what one wants to be true for what is actually true.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Desire over evidence:
Wishful thinking prioritizes desires and hopes over factual evidence, reason, or logic.
Unrealistic expectations:
It leads to forming beliefs about unlikely or impossible situations as if they were attainable.
Examples:
A person might believe they'll win the lottery after buying tickets for years, despite the low odds. Or, someone might think a relationship is going well based on their feelings, even if their partner is showing signs of disinterest.
Consequences:
Wishful thinking can lead to poor decision-making, missed opportunities, and a disconnect from reality.
"
They believed that they could make a God out of their desires, which were covetous and g*n*c*d*l from the get go according to their book.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1035512 ... 408670455/
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/25/43/#gsc.tab=0
"
Have you seen (one) who takes (as) his god his own desire? Then would you be over him a guardian?
"
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/25/ ... #gsc.tab=0
"
his own desire
hawāhu
هَوَاهُ
ه و ى
"
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... a-539.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/25/ ... #gsc.tab=0
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/53/23/#gsc.tab=0
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/53/ ... #gsc.tab=0
"
Not they (are) except names you have named them, you and your forefathers, not has sent down Allah for it any authority. Not they follow except assumption and what desire the(ir) souls. And certainly has come to them from their Lord the guidance.
"
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1489.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1481.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1753.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1044.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... a-508.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/occult/comment ... heal_from/
"
I wanted to make a talisman that would assist in avoiding and healing from the absolute onslaught we deal with daily from politics, the news, and social media.
The raw silver Ingot was burnt with a paper petition for resolve and resilience. Quenched red hot in a solution of calming herbs, Murray and Lanman Florida Water, hematite, and clear quartz. Forged to shape and engraved with it's seal. Manually patinaed
"
This is a new religion, the approach I think is coming from a totally different place than the prior cultural religions and arts.
"
bumbarlunchi6
•
5d ago
What sigil is it? I am still learning, sorry if this is a stupid question
Upvote
6
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/with-hidden-noise avatar
with-hidden-noise
OP
•
5d ago
Not a stupid question at all!
I made all the sigils. The gist is the center one represents clarity and calmness and the outer ones represent the things to be protected from.
Upvote
14
Downvote
Reply
reply
bumbarlunchi6
•
5d ago
Oh nice! Did you use any particular system for inspiration and such? Thanks for such a kind answer
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/with-hidden-noise avatar
with-hidden-noise
OP
•
5d ago
I tend to run pretty eclectic with my inspiration. The petition work is pretty Greek, the quenching is alchemical, the suffumigation is Egyptian inspired etc
The sigil/seal work is chaos magick based for the most part, but inspired by classic grimoires.
"
cwamoon
•
4d ago
W.o.w.
The calmness that radiated through my screen just now...
Do you do commissioned works, or per chance would you be willing to sell a talisman like this to me? Pretty pleaseee
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/with-hidden-noise avatar
with-hidden-noise
OP
•
4d ago
Thank you! I saw your chat request and will give you details there
"
"
Daleth434
•
5d ago
Then the problem is not media, it’s stress. My bugbear is poor grammar; half the time, I really don’t know what people are talking about, because they don’t know how to construct a sentence. Why we find things stressful is more important than what it is.
I hope that you are more successful than I in transcending such barriers. One day I shall be standing at the Pearly Gates and St Peter will push them ajar for me, and I will say, “Nope, I’m not going in until everyone there can tell me the difference between the Subjunctive Mood and the Passive Future Continuous Tense”.
The solution, I fear, is not to be remain stressed and miserable until every English speaker can speak English. Oh well, I wish myself luck with that, and hope you have better.
Upvote
-7
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/Saintly-Mendicant-69 avatar
Saintly-Mendicant-69
•
5d ago
Yikes
"
https://www.reddit.com/r/witchcraft/com ... _you_want/
"
Chaos magic lacks any certificates of participation. You achieve what you set out to do or you have failed. Success could be lasting apotheosis or it could be bedding your secretary. This only looks like elitism to failures. To scientists, it looks like science.
"
"
kalizoid313
•
2y ago
For me, the attraction of Chaos magic is its recognition of investigation, innovation, and experimentation in domains often excluded by generally accepted dominant religions, spiritualities, and occulture. The notion that new ways might turn out to be just as--or even more--fruitful than old ways. (I am not the only one who has wondered why a ritual of my design and performance and figures could not be just as good as a ritual from somebody else's old black book.)
Craft and Magic including Modern Mythologies and understandings.
I don't know if following that sort of path is "doing what you want." A scribble is not always a sigil. But, sometimes, for some practitioners, a scribble might be. I guess that I won't close the gate on that kind of possibility. Because...Chaos...
"
"
SpiderCricket13
•
2y ago
I have been practicing for 30 odd years, and still don’t understand the difference between eclectic and chaos witch, and witchcraft generally. I rather think that unless you pick an exclusive path, it’s all do what you want, if it works, keep it in your practice, if it doesn’t, it’s not on your path. I may be wrong?
Upvote
16
Downvote
NotApplicableMC
•
2y ago
•
Edited 2y ago
Eclectic is more like “borrowing” already established traditions & practices, combing and mixing how you want to make something new. Usually based in already established norms.
Chaos is just doing literally anything that springs to mind and seeing if it sticks. Like shouting “GO GO power rangers!” at your plants every morning to make them grow.
Obviously the two ideas have a lot of overlap and you can be both.
Edit: to clarify, as a chaos witch you can practise traditions (like ceremonial magick), but as the post is trying to say, chaos magick is results-driven magick first & foremost. So you can do anything you want, but you stick with what works and drop whatever doesn’t.
"
These people "magically" get on my nerves, just seeing their writing is so annoying to me, I can't relate at all.
They are totally different, because they don't seem to care about religion really, they are into something else ultimately, they approach from "aesthetics" and "cosplaying" first, and a desire for power instead of awe, they are not worshippers or worshipful, they are pretentious, sacreligious, and basically evil filth as far as I can tell, unclean, impious, not true devotees of anything but their hallucinations and infatuation with the idea of themselves being powerful and prestigious by deluding themselves, and rarely are they ever even clean or attractive, they are often mentally ill and grimey and have terrible taste.
"
greeneyedwench
•
2y ago
I'm not sure what book this is, but the author sounds like a piece of work. Fat shaming while encouraging workplace affairs, hooray?
It's my understanding that it doesn't mean "doing whatever you want," it's more like doing whatever makes sense in your world even if it's not a traditionally religious or magical thing. Like if Captain America is the kind of figure you always wanted to worship as a god, why not do it? (I didn't name Loki or Thor because they really are gods, but if you're worshipping something closer to the Marvel versions, I'd call that chaos magick too.)
Upvote
10
Downvote
gabkins
•
2y ago
I like your take on it! And I was equally puzzled/annoyed by what you've artfully referred to as "Fat shaming while encouraging workplace affairs, hooray?." lol. oof.
great work author on using magick to have a workplace affair, what a SUCCESSFUL chaos magician you are. *amused chuckle*
"
Captain America can be broken down into different symbols that can be made to refer to things in reality, but Captain America as he appears in stories is not anything like "a God" of any value, and worshipping Captain America "as is" would amount to nothing. Red Skull, again, is more potent symbolically and as broken down symbols rather than the character.
This is subjectivism, and it has ruined society, culture, and spirituality for a few generations now.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html
Lets see what the pure evil Ayn Rand Lexicon says:
"
Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe. (This is the "mixed," moderate or middle-of-the-road version of subjectivism. Pure or "extreme" subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature.)
In metaphysics, "subjectivism" is the view that reality (the "object") is dependent on human consciousness (the "subject"). In epistemology, as a result, subjectivists hold that a man need not concern himself with the facts of reality; instead, to arrive at knowledge or truth, he need merely turn his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to their dictates. According to the most widespread form of subjectivism, the elements which possess this power are feelings.
In essence, subjectivism is the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts, and therefore men's primary tool of cognition. If men feel it, declares the subjectivist, that makes it so.
The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of objectivity—an attitude which rests on the view that reality exists independent of human consciousness; that the role of the subject is not to create the object, but to perceive it; and that knowledge of reality can be acquired only by directing one's attention outward to the facts.
The subjectivist denies that there is any such thing as "the truth" on a given question, the truth which corresponds to the facts. On his view, truth varies from consciousness to consciousness as the processes or contents of consciousness vary; the same statement may be true for one consciousness (or one type of consciousness) and false for another. The virtually infallible sign of the subjectivist is his refusal to say, of a statement he accepts: "It is true"; instead, he says: "It is true—for me (or for us)." There is no truth, only truth relative to an individual or a group—truth for me, for you, for him, for her, for us, for them.
Your teachers, the mystics of both schools, have reversed causality in their consciousness, then strive to reverse it in existence. They take their emotions as a cause, and their mind as a passive effect. They make their emotions their tool for perceiving reality. They hold their desires as an irreducible primary, as a fact superseding all facts. An honest man does not desire until he has identified the object of his desire. He says: "It is, therefore I want it." They say: "I want it, therefore it is."
They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness—they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.
There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question: whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man's feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism—the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant's system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.
Later philosophers accepted Kant's fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind's structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained—as Kant had said—then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.
The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. On this issue, as on many others, the Nazis follow the Marxists, but substitute race for class.
Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it "arbitrary postulate" or "subjective choice" or "emotional commitment")—and the battle is only over the question of whose whim: one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. Whatever else they may disagree about, today's moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reason—mind—reality.
If you wonder why the world is now collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell, this is the reason.
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics—and of all ethical history—that you must challenge.
There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective.
The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man's consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, "intuitions," or whims, and that it is merely an "arbitrary postulate" or an "emotional commitment."
The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality.
Ethical subjectivism, which holds that a desire or a whim is an irreducible moral primary, that every man is entitled to any desire he might feel like asserting, that all desires have equal moral validity, and that the only way men can get along together is by giving in to anything and "compromising" with anyone. It is not hard to see who would profit and who would lose by such a doctrine.
The subjectivist theory of ethics is, strictly speaking, not a theory, but a negation of ethics. And more: it is a negation of reality, a negation not merely of man's existence, but of all existence. Only the concept of a fluid, plastic, indeterminate, Heraclitean universe could permit anyone to think or to preach that man needs no objective principles of action—that reality gives him a blank check on values—that anything he cares to pick as the good or the evil, will do—that a man's whim is a valid moral standard, and that the only question is how to get away with it. The existential monument to this theory is the present state of our culture.
A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk.
"Something made by an artist" is not a definition of art. A beard and a vacant stare are not the defining characteristics of an artist.
"Something in a frame hung on a wall" is not a definition of painting.
"Something with a number of pages in a binding" is not a definition of literature.
"Something piled together" is not a definition of sculpture. "Something made of sounds produced by anything" is not a definition of music.
"Something glued on a flat surface" is not a definition of any art. There is no art that uses glue as a medium. Blades of grass glued on a sheet of paper to represent grass might be good occupational therapy for retarded children—though I doubt it—but it is not art.
"Because I felt like it" is not a definition or validation of anything.
There is no place for whim in any human activity—if it is to be regarded as human. There is no place for the unknowable, the unintelligible, the undefinable, the non-objective in any human product.
The clearest symptom by which one can recognize [the amoralist] is his total inability to judge himself, his actions, or his work by any sort of standard. The normal pattern of self-appraisal requires a reference to some abstract value or virtue—e.g., "I am good because I am rational," "I am good because I am honest," even the second-hander's notion of "I am good because people like me." Regardless of whether the value-standards involved are true or false, these examples imply the recognition of an essential moral principle: that one's own value has to be earned.
The amoralist's implicit pattern of self-appraisal (which he seldom identifies or admits) is: "I am good because it's me."
Beyond the age of about three to five (i.e., beyond the perceptual level of mental development), this is not an expression of pride or self-esteem, but of the opposite: of a vacuum—of a stagnant, arrested mentality confessing its impotence to achieve any personal value or virtue.
Do not confuse this pattern with psychological subjectivism. A psychological subjectivist is unable fully to identify his values or to prove their objective validity, but he may be profoundly consistent and loyal to them in practice (though with terrible psycho-epistemological difficulty). The amoralist does not hold subjective values; he does not hold any values. The implicit pattern of all his estimates is: "It's good because I like it"—"It's right because I did it"—"It's true because I want it to be true." What is the "I" in these statements? A physical hulk driven by chronic anxiety.
[The amoralist] will walk over piles of corpses—in order to assert himself? no—in order to hide (or fill) the nagging inner vacuum left by his aborted self.
The grim joke on mankind is the fact that he is held up as a symbol of selfishness.
The main characteristic of this mentality is a special kind of passivity: not passivity as such and not across-the-board, but passivity beyond a certain limit—i.e., passivity in regard to the process of conceptualization and, therefore, in regard to fundamental principles. It is a mentality which decided, at a certain point of development, that it knows enough and does not care to look further. What does it accept as "enough"? The immediately given, directly perceivable concretes of its background. . . .
To grasp and deal with such concretes, a human being needs a certain degree of conceptual development, a process which the brain of an animal cannot perform. But after the initial feat of learning to speak, a child can counterfeit this process, by memorization and imitation. The anti-conceptual mentality stops on this level of development—on the first levels of abstractions, which identify perceptual material consisting predominantly of physical objects—and does not choose to take the next, crucial, fully volitional step: the higher levels of abstraction from abstractions, which cannot be learned by imitation. (See my book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) . . .
The anti-conceptual mentality takes most things as irreducible primaries and regards them as "self-evident." It treats concepts as if they were (memorized) percepts; it treats abstractions as if they were perceptual concretes. To such a mentality, everything is the given: the passage of time, the four seasons, the institution of marriage, the weather, the breeding of children, a flood, a fire, an earthquake, a revolution, a book are phenomena of the same order. The distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made is not merely unknown to this mentality, it is incommunicable.
[This type of mentality] has learned to speak, but has never grasped the process of conceptualization. Concepts, to him, are merely some sort of code signals employed by other people for some inexplicable reason, signals that have no relation to reality or to himself. He treats concepts as if they were percepts, and their meaning changes with any change of circumstances. Whatever he learns or happens to retain is treated, in his mind, as if it had always been there, as if it were an item of direct awareness, with no memory of how he acquired it—as a random store of unprocessed material that comes and goes at the mercy of chance . . . He does not seek knowledge—he "exposes himself" to "experience," hoping, in effect, that it will push something into his mind; if nothing happens, he feels with self-righteous rancor that there is nothing he can do about it. Mental action, i.e., mental effort—any sort of processing, identifying, organizing, integrating, critical evaluation or control of his mental content—is an alien realm.
This mentality is not the product of ignorance (nor is it caused by lack of intelligence): it is self-made, i.e., self-arrested.
In the brain of an anti-conceptual person, the process of integration is largely replaced by a process of association. What his subconscious stores and automatizes is not ideas, but an indiscriminate accumulation of sundry concretes, random facts, and unidentified feelings, piled into unlabeled mental file folders. This works, up to a certain point—i.e., so long as such a person deals with other persons whose folders are stuffed similarly, and thus no search through the entire filing system is ever required. Within such limits, the person can be active and willing to work hard. . . .
A person of this mentality may uphold some abstract principles or profess some intellectual convictions (without remembering where or how he picked them up). But if one asks him what he means by a given idea, he will not be able to answer. If one asks him the reasons of his convictions, one will discover that his convictions are a thin, fragile film floating over a vacuum, like an oil slick in empty space—and one will be shocked by the number of questions it had never occurred to him to ask.
He seems able to understand a discussion or a rational argument, sometimes even on an abstract, theoretical level. He is able to participate, to agree or disagree after what appears to be a critical examination of the issue. But the next time one meets him, the conclusions he reached are gone from his mind, as if the discussion had never occurred even though he remembers it: he remembers the event, i.e., a discussion, not its intellectual content.
It is beside the point to accuse him of hypocrisy or lying (though some part of both is necessarily involved). His problem is much worse than that: he was sincere, he meant what he said in and for that moment. But it ended with that moment. Nothing happens in his mind to an idea he accepts or rejects; there is no processing, no integration, no application to himself, his actions or his concerns; he is unable to use it or even to retain it. Ideas, i.e., abstractions, have no reality to him; abstractions involve the past and the future, as well as the present; nothing is fully real to him except the present. Concepts, in his mind, become percepts—percepts of people uttering sounds; and percepts end when the stimuli vanish. When he uses words, his mental operations are closer to those of a parrot than of a human being. In the strict sense of the word, he has not learned to speak.
But there is one constant in his mental flux. The subconscious is an integrating mechanism; when left without conscious control, it goes on integrating on its own—and, like an automatic blender, his subconscious squeezes its clutter of trash to produce a single basic emotion: fear.
It is the fundamentals of philosophy (particularly, of ethics) that an anti-conceptual person dreads above all else. To understand and to apply them requires a long conceptual chain, which he has made his mind incapable of holding beyond the first, rudimentary links. If his professed beliefs—i.e., the rules and slogans of his group—are challenged, he feels his consciousness dissolving in fog. Hence, his fear of outsiders. The word "outsiders," to him, means the whole wide world beyond the confines of his village or town or gang—the world of all those people who do not live by his "rules." He does not know why he feels that outsiders are a deadly threat to him and why they fill him with helpless terror. The threat is not existential, but psycho-epistemological: to deal with them requires that he rise above his "rules" to the level of abstract principles. He would die rather than attempt it.
"Protection from outsiders" is the benefit he seeks in clinging to his group. What the group demands in return is obedience to its rules, which he is eager to obey: those rules are his protection—from the dreaded realm of abstract thought.
Racism is an obvious manifestation of the anti-conceptual mentality. So is xenophobia—the fear or hatred of foreigners ("outsiders"). So is any caste system, which prescribes a man's status (i.e., assigns him to a tribe) according to his birth; a caste system is perpetuated by a special kind of snobbishness (i.e., group loyalty) not merely among the aristocrats, but, perhaps more fiercely, among the commoners or even the serfs, who like to "know their place" and to guard it jealously against the outsiders from above or from below. So is guild socialism. So is any kind of ancestor worship or of family "solidarity" (the family including uncles, aunts and third cousins). So is any criminal gang.
Tribalism . . . is the best name to give to all the group manifestations of the anti-conceptual mentality.
Observe that today's resurgence of tribalism is not a product of the lower classes—of the poor, the helpless, the ignorant—but of the intellectuals, the college-educated "elitists" (which is a purely tribalistic term). Observe the proliferation of grotesque herds or gangs—hippies, yippies, beatniks, peaceniks, Women's Libs, Gay Libs, Jesus Freaks, Earth Children—which are not tribes, but shifting aggregates of people desperately seeking tribal "protection."
The common denominator of all such gangs is the belief in motion (mass demonstrations), not action—in chanting, not arguing—in demanding, not achieving—in feeling, not thinking—in denouncing "outsiders," not in pursuing values—in focusing only on the "now," the "today" without a "tomorrow"—in seeking to return to "nature," to "the earth," to the mud, to physical labor, i.e., to all the things which a perceptual mentality is able to handle. You don't see advocates of reason and science clogging a street in the belief that using their bodies to stop traffic, will solve any problem.
"
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tribalism.html
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: The God(s): Deconstructing Religious & Magical Thinking
One of the most useful parts is the "Xeno, Chrono, Amphi" idea:
"
ἀμφί (amphí, “on both sides”)
"
Xeno being "Outside Sequential & Consequential Time" and Chrono being Immanent but First and also not being influenced, and the layer in between, which is Amphi and information and memory, so showing the effect of apparent influence and consequences and results.
So that would be Zeus or Cronus as Chrono, Poseidon or Astraios as Amphi, and Hades or Dionysus as Xeno.
That is because "History" or what is "past" is outside of time and can not be impacted by anything "in time" currently, so it is The First, The Current, The Last, or What Is Impending and Definite, What Is Occurring or Active, and What is Past and Possible.
They all interact, and the last, which is Xeno, loops around and influences the first action which influences what occurs and becomes memory and history and the close of a sequence and what may be generated being selected, going into action, then processing.
The Power is outside of our reality as in before it, inside of our reality, and outside of it again as after it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-manifold
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
"
Furthermore, it may be that there is a subjective component to time, but whether or not time itself is "felt", as a sensation, or is a judgment, is a matter of debate.[2][6][7][67][68]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duration_(philosophy)
"
Henri Bergson believed that time was neither a real homogeneous medium nor a mental construct, but possesses what he referred to as Duration. Duration, in Bergson's view, was creativity and memory as an essential component of reality.[80]
According to Martin Heidegger we do not exist inside time, we are time. Hence, the relationship to the past is a present awareness of having been, which allows the past to exist in the present. The relationship to the future is the state of anticipating a potential possibility, task, or engagement. It is related to the human propensity for caring and being concerned, which causes "being ahead of oneself" when thinking of a pending occurrence. Therefore, this concern for a potential occurrence also allows the future to exist in the present. The present becomes an experience, which is qualitative instead of quantitative. Heidegger seems to think this is the way that a linear relationship with time, or temporal existence, is broken or transcended.[81] We are not stuck in sequential time. We are able to remember the past and project into the future; we have a kind of random access to our representation of temporal existence; we can, in our thoughts, step out of (ecstasis) sequential time.[82]
Modern era philosophers asked: is time real or unreal, is time happening all at once or a duration, is time tensed or tenseless, and is there a future to be?[69] There is a theory called the tenseless or B-theory; this theory says that any tensed terminology can be replaced with tenseless terminology.[83] For example, "we will win the game" can be replaced with "we do win the game", taking out the future tense. On the other hand, there is a theory called the tense or A-theory; this theory says that our language has tense verbs for a reason and that the future can not be determined.[83] There is also something called imaginary time, this was from Stephen Hawking, who said that space and imaginary time are finite but have no boundaries.[83] Imaginary time is not real or unreal, it is something that is hard to visualize.[83] Philosophers can agree that physical time exists outside of the human mind and is objective, and psychological time is mind-dependent and subjective.[71]
In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth, held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." Parmenides went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the paradoxes of his follower Zeno.[84] Time as an illusion is also a common theme in Buddhist thought.[85][86]
These arguments often center on what it means for something to be unreal. Modern physicists generally believe that time is as real as space—though others, such as Julian Barbour, argue quantum equations of the universe take their true form when expressed in the timeless realm containing every possible now or momentary configuration of the universe.[87] J. M. E. McTaggart's 1908 article The Unreality of Time argues that, since every event has the characteristic of being both present and not present (i.e., future or past), that time is a self-contradictory idea.
Another modern philosophical theory called presentism views the past and the future as human-mind interpretations of movement instead of real parts of time (or "dimensions") which coexist with the present. This theory rejects the existence of all direct interaction with the past or the future, holding only the present as tangible. This is one of the philosophical arguments against time travel.[88] This contrasts with eternalism (all time: present, past and future, is real) and the growing block theory (the present and the past are real, but the future is not).
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_series
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_pe ... _illusions
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_effect
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_timeline
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result
"
A result (also called upshot) is the outcome or consequence of a sequence of actions or events.[1] Possible results include gain, injury, value, and victory. Some types of results include the outcome of an action, the final value of a calculation, and the outcome of a vote.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(philosophy)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_alignment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_symbiosis
https://www.hellenicgods.org/three-zeus
"
The Three Zeuses are mighty deities of Ællînismόs (Hellênismos, Ἑλληνισμός), the ancient Greek religion. They are Ploutôn (Plutô or Hades, Πλούτων), Poseidóhn (Poseidôn or Neptune, Ποσειδῶν), and Olympian Zefs (Ζεύς). These deities are brothers and members of the Kronídai (Cronidae, Κρονίδαι), since they are the sons of Krónos (Cronus, Κρόνος).
The Mythology
Mighty Krónos (Cronus, Κρόνος) received an oracle that one of his children would usurp him. To prevent this, he swallowed each child in turn as they were born to his wife Rhǽa (Rhea, Ῥέα). [1] But when Zefs came forth, the divine child was rushed into hiding, and Rhǽa deceived her husband by presenting him with a stone wrapped in swaddling cloth and declared it to be his newborn son. Krónos swallowed the stone causing all the children to be vomited up:
"Therefore Orcus (Πλούτων), coming forth first, descended, and occupies the lower, that is, the infernal regions. The second, being above him...he whom they call Neptune (Ποσειδῶν), is thrust forth upon the waters. The third (Ζεὺς Ὀλυμπικός), who survived by the artifice of his mother Rhea, she put upon a she-goat and sent into heaven.” (trans. Thomas Smith, 1886.) [2]
The Orphic Egg: the universe and the soul
Orphic theogony describes the Kozmic Egg from which the universe emerges. The soul of all sentient beings has the same form, for it is a microcosm of the Kozmic Egg of the Universe. The Three Zefs have governance over the three parts of the egg:
Ploutôn rules the center (the yolk, βουλή)
Poseidóhn rules the middle (the white of the egg, πάθος)
Olympian Zefs rules the cortex (the shell of the egg, νους).
The Earth, the Sea, and the Heavens
Our earthly system is also a microcosm of the Kozmic Egg with the component parts being:
Ploutôn rules the Earth, like the yolk of the egg.
Poseidóhn rules the Sea and the Middle Sky beneath the Moon, like the white of the egg.
Olympian Zefs rules the Heavens, like the shell of the egg.
The Three Zeuses have the same essence
The three brothers are three separate deities, yet they are of one essence. This is one of the great mysteries of our religion. Because they have the same essence, Zefs is known by the epithet trióphthalmos (triophthalmus, τριόφθαλμος): three-eyed, each eye representing one of the brothers, but all three eyes belonging to Olympian Zefs. [3]
In the mythology, this is told with the story of the casting of lots:
“...but they themselves cast lots for the sovereignty, and to Zeus was allotted the dominion of the sky, to Poseidon the dominion of the sea, and to Pluto the dominion in Hades.” (trans. J.G. Frazer, 1921) [4]
“For three brethren are we, begotten of Cronos, and born of Rhea,—Zeus, and myself, and the third is Hades, that is lord of the dead below. And in three-fold wise are all things divided, and unto each hath been apportioned his own domain. I verily, when the lots were shaken, won for my portion the grey sea to be my habitation for ever, and Hades won the murky darkness, while Zeus won the broad heaven amid the air and the clouds.” (trans. A. T. Murray, 1924) [5]
Kallímakhos (Callimachus, Καλλίμαχος), the Alexandrian poet, refers to this same mythology, but he points out that it is not by mere chance that these deities hold the positions which they do:
"Fairly didst thou wax, O heavenly Zeus, and fairly wert thou nurtured, and swiftly thou didst grow to manhood, and speedily came the down upon thy cheek. But, while yet a child, thou didst devise all the deeds of perfect stature. Wherefore thy kindred, though an earlier generation, grudged not that thou shouldst have heaven for thine appointed habitation. The ancient poets spake not altogether truly. For they said that the lot assigned to the sons of Cronus their three several abodes. But who would draw lots for Olympus and for Hades – save a very fool? for equal chances should one cast lots; but these are the wide world apart. When I speak fiction, be it such fiction as persuades the listener’s ear! Thou wert made sovereign of the Gods not by casting of lots but by the deeds of thy hands, thy might and that strength which thou hast set beside thy throne." (trans. A.W. Mair and G.R. Mair, 1921) [6]
The Neoplatonic philosopher Próklos explains their dominions in this way:
"He (Ζεὺς Ὀλυμπικός) is also the summit of the three, has the same name with the fontal (ed. fontal means fundamental source) Jupiter (Ζεὺς), is united to him, and is monadically called Jupiter. But the second is called dyadically, marine Jupiter, and Neptune (Ποσειδῶν). And the third is triadically denominated, terrestrial (χθόνιος) Jupiter, Pluto, and Hades (Ἅιδης-Πλούτων). The first of these also preserves, fabricates, and vivifies (ed. animates) summits, but the second, things of a second rank, and the third those of a third order. Hence this last is said to have ravished Proserpine (Περσεφόνη), that together with her he might animate the extremities of the universe." [7]
The Weapons of the Three Zeuses
The one-eyed Kýklopæs (Cyclopes, Κύκλωπες) constructed three magnificent gifts, one for each of the Three Zefs:
“And the Cyclopes then gave Zeus thunder and lightning and a thunderbolt, and on Pluto they bestowed a helmet and on Poseidon a trident.” (trans. Sir James George Frazer, 1921) [8]
For Zefs they forged the Kærafnós (Ceraunus, Κεραυνός), the awesome thunderbolt, as well as lightning, symbolic of his tremendous power and dominion over the vast heavens, indeed, symbolic of his dominion over all the Kózmos (Cosmos, Κόσμος). With this mighty weapon, he can deify souls, raise great storms and even flood the whole world.
For Poseidóhn the Kýklopæs crafted the Tríaina (Trident, Τρίαινα) by which he can split rocks, create earthquakes and springs of sea-water. It is said that with the Tríaina, Poseidóhn spontaneously created horses, symbolic of the vehicle of the soul.
And for Ploutôn they created the Áïdos kynǽîn (Aïdos kuneên, Ἄϊδος κυνέην), the dog-skin cap which renders the wearer invisible, symbolic of the power of the mighty God.
NOTES:
[1] Orphic frag. 56b Rufinus Recognitions of St. Clement (pseudo-Clement) 10.18 (Ed. Basil. 156, Migne PG 1, 1429):
sed de illis sex maribus unus, qui dicitur Saturnus, in coniugium accepit Rheam, et cum responso quodam commonitus esset, quod qui ex ea naceretur for | tior ipso futurus esset regnoque eum depelleret, omnes qui ei nascerentur filios devorare instituit. huic ergo primus nascitur filius, quem Aiden appellarunt, qui apud nos Orcus nominatur, quem pro causis quibus supra diximus assumptum devorat pater. post hunc secundum genuit, quem Neptunum dicunt, quemque simili modo devoravit. novissimum genuit eum, quem Iovem appellant, sed hunc mater miserans Rhea, per artem devoraturo subtrahit patri, et primo quidem ne vagitus pueri innotesceret, Corybandtas quosdam cymbala fecit ac tympana percutere, ut obstrepente sonitu vagitus non audiretur infantis.
"But of these six (Titanic) males, the one who is called Saturn (Κρόνος) received in marriage Rhea, and having been warned by a certain oracle that he who should be born of her should be more powerful than himself, and should drive him from his kingdom, he determined to devour all the sons that should be born to him. First, then, there is born to him a son called Aides, who amongst us is called Orcus (Ὅρκος); and him, for the reason we have just stated, he took and devoured. After him he begot a second son, called Neptune; and him he devoured in like manner. Last of all, he begot him whom they call Jupiter; but him his mother Rhea pitying, by stratagem withdrew from his father when he was about to devour him. And first, indeed, that the crying of the child might not be noticed, she made certain Corybantes strike cymbals and drums, that by the deafening sound the crying of the infant might not be heard.” (trans. Thomas Smith, 1886.)
[2] Orphic frag. 56b Rufinus' translation of Recognitiones (pseudo-Clement) 10.19 (Ed. Basil. 156, Migne PG 1, 1429):
Sed cum ex uteri imminutione intellexisset pater editum partum, expetebat ad devorandum; tune Rhea lapidem ei offerens magnum, huac genui, inquit. At ille accipiens absorbuit, et lapis devoratus eos quos primo absorbuerat filios, trusit et coegit exire. Primus ergo procedens descendit Orcus, et inferiora, hoc est inferna occupat loca. Secundus utpote illo superior super aquas detruditur, is quem Neptunum vocant. Tertius qui arte matris Rheae superfuit, ab ipsa caprae superpositus in coelum emissus est.
"But when he understood from the lessening of her belly that her child was born, he demanded it, that he might devour it; then Rhea presented him with a large stone, and told him that that was what she had brought forth. And he took it, and swallowed it; and the stone, when it was devoured, pushed and drove forth those sons whom he had formerly swallowed. Therefore Orcus (Hades, ᾍδης), coming forth first, descended, and occupies the lower, that is, the infernal regions. The second, being above him...he whom they call Neptune (Ποσειδῶν), is thrust forth upon the waters. The third (Ζεὺς), who survived by the artifice of his mother Rhea, she put upon a she-goat and sent into heaven.” (trans. Thomas Smith, 1886.)
[3] Ἑλλάδος Περιήγησις Παυσανίου, Book 2 Ἀργολίς 24.4
τρεῖς δὲ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῷδε ἄν τις τεκμαίροιτο αὐτόν. Δία γὰρ ἐν οὐρανῷ βασιλεύειν, οὗτος μὲν λόγος κοινὸς πάντων ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπων. ὃν δὲ ἄρχειν φασὶν ὑπὸ γῆς, ἔστιν ἔπος τῶν Ὁμήρου Δία ὀνομάζον καὶ τοῦτον:
“ ‘Ζεύς τε καταχθόνιος καὶ ἐπαινὴ Περσεφόνεια.’ (Ἰλιὰς Ὁμήρου 2.9.457)
“Αἰσχύλος δὲ ὁ Εὐφορίωνος καλεῖ Δία καὶ τὸν ἐν θαλάσσῃ. τρισὶν οὖν ὁρῶντα ἐποίησεν ὀφθαλμοῖς ὅστις δὴ ἦν ὁ ποιήσας, ἅτε ἐν ταῖς τρισὶ ταῖς λεγομέναις λήξεσιν ἄρχοντα τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον θεόν.
“The reason for its three eyes (ed. a statue of Zefs originally from Troy) one might infer to be this. That Zeus is king in heaven is a saying common to all men. As for him who is said to rule under the earth, there is a verse of Homer which calls him, too, Zeus:—
“ ‘Zeus of the Underworld, and the august Persephonea.’ (Ἰλιὰς Ὁμήρου 2.9.457)
“The God in the sea, also, is called Zeus by Aeschylus, the son of Euphorion. So whoever made the image made it with three eyes, as signifying that this same God rules in all the three “allotments” of the Universe, as they are called.” (trans. W. H. S. Jones, 1918)
[4] Βιβλιοθήκη Ἀπολλοδώρου I.2.1·
καὶ λαγχάνει Ζεὺς μὲν τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ δυναστείαν, Ποσειδῶν δὲ τὴν ἐν θαλάσσῃ, Πλούτων δὲ τὴν ἐν Ἅιδου.
[5] Ἰλιὰς Ὁμήρου 2.15.187·
τρεῖς γάρ τ᾽ ἐκ Κρόνου εἰμὲν ἀδελφεοὶ οὓς τέκετο Ῥέα
Ζεὺς καὶ ἐγώ, τρίτατος δ᾽ Ἀΐδης ἐνέροισιν ἀνάσσων.
τριχθὰ δὲ πάντα δέδασται, ἕκαστος δ᾽ ἔμμορε τιμῆς:
ἤτοι ἐγὼν ἔλαχον πολιὴν ἅλα ναιέμεν αἰεὶ
παλλομένων, Ἀΐδης δ᾽ ἔλαχε ζόφον ἠερόεντα,
Ζεὺς δ᾽ ἔλαχ᾽ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἐν αἰθέρι καὶ νεφέλῃσι.
[6] εἰς Δία Καλλιμάχου 55-67, trans. A.W. Mair and G.R. Mair, 1921.
καλὰ μὲν ἠέξευ, καλὰ δ᾽ ἔτραφες, οὐράνιε Ζεῦ,
ὀξὺ δ᾽ ἀνήβησας, ταχινοὶ δέ τοι ἦλθον ἴουλοι.
ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι παιδνὸς ἐὼν ἐφράσσαο πάντα τέλεια:
τῶ τοι καὶ γνωτοὶ προτερηγενέες περ ἐόντες
οὐρανὸν οὐκ ἐμέγηραν ἔχειν ἐπιδαίσιον οἶκον.
δηναιοὶ δ᾽ οὐ πάμπαν ἀληθέες ἦσαν ἀοιδοί.
φάντο πάλον Κρονίδῃσι διάτριχα δώματα νεῖμαι:
τίς δέ κ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Οὐλύμπῳ τε καὶ Ἄιδι κλῆρον ἐρύσσαι,
ὃς μάλα μὴ νενίηλος; ἐπ᾽ ἰσαίῃ γὰρ ἔοικε
πήλασθαι: τὰ δὲ τόσσον ὅσον διὰ πλεῖστον ἔχουσι.
ψευδοίμην ἀίοντος ἅ κεν πεπίθοιεν ἀκουήν.
οὔ σε θεῶν ἐσσῆνα πάλοι θέσαν, ἔργα δὲ χειρῶν
σή τε βίη τό τε κάρτος, ὃ καὶ πέλας εἵσαο δίφρου.
[7] σχόλιον Πρόκλου επί Κρατύλου Πλάτωνος, trans. Thomas Taylor, 1816.
[8] Βιβλιοθήκη Ἀπολλοδώρου Ι.2.1·
καὶ Κύκλωπες τότε Διὶ μὲν διδόασι βροντὴν καὶ ἀστραπὴν καὶ κεραυνόν, Πλούτωνι δὲ κυνέην, Ποσειδῶνι δὲ τρίαιναν.
"
https://www.hellenicgods.org/experienci ... k-religion
https://youtu.be/P4IeXPLzAhM?feature=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43ghM1RHf ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wepLHBUWj ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbk3lA6zC ... ure=shared
"
ἀμφί (amphí, “on both sides”)
"
Xeno being "Outside Sequential & Consequential Time" and Chrono being Immanent but First and also not being influenced, and the layer in between, which is Amphi and information and memory, so showing the effect of apparent influence and consequences and results.
So that would be Zeus or Cronus as Chrono, Poseidon or Astraios as Amphi, and Hades or Dionysus as Xeno.
That is because "History" or what is "past" is outside of time and can not be impacted by anything "in time" currently, so it is The First, The Current, The Last, or What Is Impending and Definite, What Is Occurring or Active, and What is Past and Possible.
They all interact, and the last, which is Xeno, loops around and influences the first action which influences what occurs and becomes memory and history and the close of a sequence and what may be generated being selected, going into action, then processing.
The Power is outside of our reality as in before it, inside of our reality, and outside of it again as after it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-manifold
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
"
Furthermore, it may be that there is a subjective component to time, but whether or not time itself is "felt", as a sensation, or is a judgment, is a matter of debate.[2][6][7][67][68]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duration_(philosophy)
"
Henri Bergson believed that time was neither a real homogeneous medium nor a mental construct, but possesses what he referred to as Duration. Duration, in Bergson's view, was creativity and memory as an essential component of reality.[80]
According to Martin Heidegger we do not exist inside time, we are time. Hence, the relationship to the past is a present awareness of having been, which allows the past to exist in the present. The relationship to the future is the state of anticipating a potential possibility, task, or engagement. It is related to the human propensity for caring and being concerned, which causes "being ahead of oneself" when thinking of a pending occurrence. Therefore, this concern for a potential occurrence also allows the future to exist in the present. The present becomes an experience, which is qualitative instead of quantitative. Heidegger seems to think this is the way that a linear relationship with time, or temporal existence, is broken or transcended.[81] We are not stuck in sequential time. We are able to remember the past and project into the future; we have a kind of random access to our representation of temporal existence; we can, in our thoughts, step out of (ecstasis) sequential time.[82]
Modern era philosophers asked: is time real or unreal, is time happening all at once or a duration, is time tensed or tenseless, and is there a future to be?[69] There is a theory called the tenseless or B-theory; this theory says that any tensed terminology can be replaced with tenseless terminology.[83] For example, "we will win the game" can be replaced with "we do win the game", taking out the future tense. On the other hand, there is a theory called the tense or A-theory; this theory says that our language has tense verbs for a reason and that the future can not be determined.[83] There is also something called imaginary time, this was from Stephen Hawking, who said that space and imaginary time are finite but have no boundaries.[83] Imaginary time is not real or unreal, it is something that is hard to visualize.[83] Philosophers can agree that physical time exists outside of the human mind and is objective, and psychological time is mind-dependent and subjective.[71]
In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth, held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." Parmenides went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the paradoxes of his follower Zeno.[84] Time as an illusion is also a common theme in Buddhist thought.[85][86]
These arguments often center on what it means for something to be unreal. Modern physicists generally believe that time is as real as space—though others, such as Julian Barbour, argue quantum equations of the universe take their true form when expressed in the timeless realm containing every possible now or momentary configuration of the universe.[87] J. M. E. McTaggart's 1908 article The Unreality of Time argues that, since every event has the characteristic of being both present and not present (i.e., future or past), that time is a self-contradictory idea.
Another modern philosophical theory called presentism views the past and the future as human-mind interpretations of movement instead of real parts of time (or "dimensions") which coexist with the present. This theory rejects the existence of all direct interaction with the past or the future, holding only the present as tangible. This is one of the philosophical arguments against time travel.[88] This contrasts with eternalism (all time: present, past and future, is real) and the growing block theory (the present and the past are real, but the future is not).
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_series
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_pe ... _illusions
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_effect
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_timeline
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result
"
A result (also called upshot) is the outcome or consequence of a sequence of actions or events.[1] Possible results include gain, injury, value, and victory. Some types of results include the outcome of an action, the final value of a calculation, and the outcome of a vote.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(philosophy)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_alignment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_symbiosis
https://www.hellenicgods.org/three-zeus
"
The Three Zeuses are mighty deities of Ællînismόs (Hellênismos, Ἑλληνισμός), the ancient Greek religion. They are Ploutôn (Plutô or Hades, Πλούτων), Poseidóhn (Poseidôn or Neptune, Ποσειδῶν), and Olympian Zefs (Ζεύς). These deities are brothers and members of the Kronídai (Cronidae, Κρονίδαι), since they are the sons of Krónos (Cronus, Κρόνος).
The Mythology
Mighty Krónos (Cronus, Κρόνος) received an oracle that one of his children would usurp him. To prevent this, he swallowed each child in turn as they were born to his wife Rhǽa (Rhea, Ῥέα). [1] But when Zefs came forth, the divine child was rushed into hiding, and Rhǽa deceived her husband by presenting him with a stone wrapped in swaddling cloth and declared it to be his newborn son. Krónos swallowed the stone causing all the children to be vomited up:
"Therefore Orcus (Πλούτων), coming forth first, descended, and occupies the lower, that is, the infernal regions. The second, being above him...he whom they call Neptune (Ποσειδῶν), is thrust forth upon the waters. The third (Ζεὺς Ὀλυμπικός), who survived by the artifice of his mother Rhea, she put upon a she-goat and sent into heaven.” (trans. Thomas Smith, 1886.) [2]
The Orphic Egg: the universe and the soul
Orphic theogony describes the Kozmic Egg from which the universe emerges. The soul of all sentient beings has the same form, for it is a microcosm of the Kozmic Egg of the Universe. The Three Zefs have governance over the three parts of the egg:
Ploutôn rules the center (the yolk, βουλή)
Poseidóhn rules the middle (the white of the egg, πάθος)
Olympian Zefs rules the cortex (the shell of the egg, νους).
The Earth, the Sea, and the Heavens
Our earthly system is also a microcosm of the Kozmic Egg with the component parts being:
Ploutôn rules the Earth, like the yolk of the egg.
Poseidóhn rules the Sea and the Middle Sky beneath the Moon, like the white of the egg.
Olympian Zefs rules the Heavens, like the shell of the egg.
The Three Zeuses have the same essence
The three brothers are three separate deities, yet they are of one essence. This is one of the great mysteries of our religion. Because they have the same essence, Zefs is known by the epithet trióphthalmos (triophthalmus, τριόφθαλμος): three-eyed, each eye representing one of the brothers, but all three eyes belonging to Olympian Zefs. [3]
In the mythology, this is told with the story of the casting of lots:
“...but they themselves cast lots for the sovereignty, and to Zeus was allotted the dominion of the sky, to Poseidon the dominion of the sea, and to Pluto the dominion in Hades.” (trans. J.G. Frazer, 1921) [4]
“For three brethren are we, begotten of Cronos, and born of Rhea,—Zeus, and myself, and the third is Hades, that is lord of the dead below. And in three-fold wise are all things divided, and unto each hath been apportioned his own domain. I verily, when the lots were shaken, won for my portion the grey sea to be my habitation for ever, and Hades won the murky darkness, while Zeus won the broad heaven amid the air and the clouds.” (trans. A. T. Murray, 1924) [5]
Kallímakhos (Callimachus, Καλλίμαχος), the Alexandrian poet, refers to this same mythology, but he points out that it is not by mere chance that these deities hold the positions which they do:
"Fairly didst thou wax, O heavenly Zeus, and fairly wert thou nurtured, and swiftly thou didst grow to manhood, and speedily came the down upon thy cheek. But, while yet a child, thou didst devise all the deeds of perfect stature. Wherefore thy kindred, though an earlier generation, grudged not that thou shouldst have heaven for thine appointed habitation. The ancient poets spake not altogether truly. For they said that the lot assigned to the sons of Cronus their three several abodes. But who would draw lots for Olympus and for Hades – save a very fool? for equal chances should one cast lots; but these are the wide world apart. When I speak fiction, be it such fiction as persuades the listener’s ear! Thou wert made sovereign of the Gods not by casting of lots but by the deeds of thy hands, thy might and that strength which thou hast set beside thy throne." (trans. A.W. Mair and G.R. Mair, 1921) [6]
The Neoplatonic philosopher Próklos explains their dominions in this way:
"He (Ζεὺς Ὀλυμπικός) is also the summit of the three, has the same name with the fontal (ed. fontal means fundamental source) Jupiter (Ζεὺς), is united to him, and is monadically called Jupiter. But the second is called dyadically, marine Jupiter, and Neptune (Ποσειδῶν). And the third is triadically denominated, terrestrial (χθόνιος) Jupiter, Pluto, and Hades (Ἅιδης-Πλούτων). The first of these also preserves, fabricates, and vivifies (ed. animates) summits, but the second, things of a second rank, and the third those of a third order. Hence this last is said to have ravished Proserpine (Περσεφόνη), that together with her he might animate the extremities of the universe." [7]
The Weapons of the Three Zeuses
The one-eyed Kýklopæs (Cyclopes, Κύκλωπες) constructed three magnificent gifts, one for each of the Three Zefs:
“And the Cyclopes then gave Zeus thunder and lightning and a thunderbolt, and on Pluto they bestowed a helmet and on Poseidon a trident.” (trans. Sir James George Frazer, 1921) [8]
For Zefs they forged the Kærafnós (Ceraunus, Κεραυνός), the awesome thunderbolt, as well as lightning, symbolic of his tremendous power and dominion over the vast heavens, indeed, symbolic of his dominion over all the Kózmos (Cosmos, Κόσμος). With this mighty weapon, he can deify souls, raise great storms and even flood the whole world.
For Poseidóhn the Kýklopæs crafted the Tríaina (Trident, Τρίαινα) by which he can split rocks, create earthquakes and springs of sea-water. It is said that with the Tríaina, Poseidóhn spontaneously created horses, symbolic of the vehicle of the soul.
And for Ploutôn they created the Áïdos kynǽîn (Aïdos kuneên, Ἄϊδος κυνέην), the dog-skin cap which renders the wearer invisible, symbolic of the power of the mighty God.
NOTES:
[1] Orphic frag. 56b Rufinus Recognitions of St. Clement (pseudo-Clement) 10.18 (Ed. Basil. 156, Migne PG 1, 1429):
sed de illis sex maribus unus, qui dicitur Saturnus, in coniugium accepit Rheam, et cum responso quodam commonitus esset, quod qui ex ea naceretur for | tior ipso futurus esset regnoque eum depelleret, omnes qui ei nascerentur filios devorare instituit. huic ergo primus nascitur filius, quem Aiden appellarunt, qui apud nos Orcus nominatur, quem pro causis quibus supra diximus assumptum devorat pater. post hunc secundum genuit, quem Neptunum dicunt, quemque simili modo devoravit. novissimum genuit eum, quem Iovem appellant, sed hunc mater miserans Rhea, per artem devoraturo subtrahit patri, et primo quidem ne vagitus pueri innotesceret, Corybandtas quosdam cymbala fecit ac tympana percutere, ut obstrepente sonitu vagitus non audiretur infantis.
"But of these six (Titanic) males, the one who is called Saturn (Κρόνος) received in marriage Rhea, and having been warned by a certain oracle that he who should be born of her should be more powerful than himself, and should drive him from his kingdom, he determined to devour all the sons that should be born to him. First, then, there is born to him a son called Aides, who amongst us is called Orcus (Ὅρκος); and him, for the reason we have just stated, he took and devoured. After him he begot a second son, called Neptune; and him he devoured in like manner. Last of all, he begot him whom they call Jupiter; but him his mother Rhea pitying, by stratagem withdrew from his father when he was about to devour him. And first, indeed, that the crying of the child might not be noticed, she made certain Corybantes strike cymbals and drums, that by the deafening sound the crying of the infant might not be heard.” (trans. Thomas Smith, 1886.)
[2] Orphic frag. 56b Rufinus' translation of Recognitiones (pseudo-Clement) 10.19 (Ed. Basil. 156, Migne PG 1, 1429):
Sed cum ex uteri imminutione intellexisset pater editum partum, expetebat ad devorandum; tune Rhea lapidem ei offerens magnum, huac genui, inquit. At ille accipiens absorbuit, et lapis devoratus eos quos primo absorbuerat filios, trusit et coegit exire. Primus ergo procedens descendit Orcus, et inferiora, hoc est inferna occupat loca. Secundus utpote illo superior super aquas detruditur, is quem Neptunum vocant. Tertius qui arte matris Rheae superfuit, ab ipsa caprae superpositus in coelum emissus est.
"But when he understood from the lessening of her belly that her child was born, he demanded it, that he might devour it; then Rhea presented him with a large stone, and told him that that was what she had brought forth. And he took it, and swallowed it; and the stone, when it was devoured, pushed and drove forth those sons whom he had formerly swallowed. Therefore Orcus (Hades, ᾍδης), coming forth first, descended, and occupies the lower, that is, the infernal regions. The second, being above him...he whom they call Neptune (Ποσειδῶν), is thrust forth upon the waters. The third (Ζεὺς), who survived by the artifice of his mother Rhea, she put upon a she-goat and sent into heaven.” (trans. Thomas Smith, 1886.)
[3] Ἑλλάδος Περιήγησις Παυσανίου, Book 2 Ἀργολίς 24.4
τρεῖς δὲ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῷδε ἄν τις τεκμαίροιτο αὐτόν. Δία γὰρ ἐν οὐρανῷ βασιλεύειν, οὗτος μὲν λόγος κοινὸς πάντων ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπων. ὃν δὲ ἄρχειν φασὶν ὑπὸ γῆς, ἔστιν ἔπος τῶν Ὁμήρου Δία ὀνομάζον καὶ τοῦτον:
“ ‘Ζεύς τε καταχθόνιος καὶ ἐπαινὴ Περσεφόνεια.’ (Ἰλιὰς Ὁμήρου 2.9.457)
“Αἰσχύλος δὲ ὁ Εὐφορίωνος καλεῖ Δία καὶ τὸν ἐν θαλάσσῃ. τρισὶν οὖν ὁρῶντα ἐποίησεν ὀφθαλμοῖς ὅστις δὴ ἦν ὁ ποιήσας, ἅτε ἐν ταῖς τρισὶ ταῖς λεγομέναις λήξεσιν ἄρχοντα τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον θεόν.
“The reason for its three eyes (ed. a statue of Zefs originally from Troy) one might infer to be this. That Zeus is king in heaven is a saying common to all men. As for him who is said to rule under the earth, there is a verse of Homer which calls him, too, Zeus:—
“ ‘Zeus of the Underworld, and the august Persephonea.’ (Ἰλιὰς Ὁμήρου 2.9.457)
“The God in the sea, also, is called Zeus by Aeschylus, the son of Euphorion. So whoever made the image made it with three eyes, as signifying that this same God rules in all the three “allotments” of the Universe, as they are called.” (trans. W. H. S. Jones, 1918)
[4] Βιβλιοθήκη Ἀπολλοδώρου I.2.1·
καὶ λαγχάνει Ζεὺς μὲν τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ δυναστείαν, Ποσειδῶν δὲ τὴν ἐν θαλάσσῃ, Πλούτων δὲ τὴν ἐν Ἅιδου.
[5] Ἰλιὰς Ὁμήρου 2.15.187·
τρεῖς γάρ τ᾽ ἐκ Κρόνου εἰμὲν ἀδελφεοὶ οὓς τέκετο Ῥέα
Ζεὺς καὶ ἐγώ, τρίτατος δ᾽ Ἀΐδης ἐνέροισιν ἀνάσσων.
τριχθὰ δὲ πάντα δέδασται, ἕκαστος δ᾽ ἔμμορε τιμῆς:
ἤτοι ἐγὼν ἔλαχον πολιὴν ἅλα ναιέμεν αἰεὶ
παλλομένων, Ἀΐδης δ᾽ ἔλαχε ζόφον ἠερόεντα,
Ζεὺς δ᾽ ἔλαχ᾽ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἐν αἰθέρι καὶ νεφέλῃσι.
[6] εἰς Δία Καλλιμάχου 55-67, trans. A.W. Mair and G.R. Mair, 1921.
καλὰ μὲν ἠέξευ, καλὰ δ᾽ ἔτραφες, οὐράνιε Ζεῦ,
ὀξὺ δ᾽ ἀνήβησας, ταχινοὶ δέ τοι ἦλθον ἴουλοι.
ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι παιδνὸς ἐὼν ἐφράσσαο πάντα τέλεια:
τῶ τοι καὶ γνωτοὶ προτερηγενέες περ ἐόντες
οὐρανὸν οὐκ ἐμέγηραν ἔχειν ἐπιδαίσιον οἶκον.
δηναιοὶ δ᾽ οὐ πάμπαν ἀληθέες ἦσαν ἀοιδοί.
φάντο πάλον Κρονίδῃσι διάτριχα δώματα νεῖμαι:
τίς δέ κ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Οὐλύμπῳ τε καὶ Ἄιδι κλῆρον ἐρύσσαι,
ὃς μάλα μὴ νενίηλος; ἐπ᾽ ἰσαίῃ γὰρ ἔοικε
πήλασθαι: τὰ δὲ τόσσον ὅσον διὰ πλεῖστον ἔχουσι.
ψευδοίμην ἀίοντος ἅ κεν πεπίθοιεν ἀκουήν.
οὔ σε θεῶν ἐσσῆνα πάλοι θέσαν, ἔργα δὲ χειρῶν
σή τε βίη τό τε κάρτος, ὃ καὶ πέλας εἵσαο δίφρου.
[7] σχόλιον Πρόκλου επί Κρατύλου Πλάτωνος, trans. Thomas Taylor, 1816.
[8] Βιβλιοθήκη Ἀπολλοδώρου Ι.2.1·
καὶ Κύκλωπες τότε Διὶ μὲν διδόασι βροντὴν καὶ ἀστραπὴν καὶ κεραυνόν, Πλούτωνι δὲ κυνέην, Ποσειδῶνι δὲ τρίαιναν.
"
https://www.hellenicgods.org/experienci ... k-religion
https://youtu.be/P4IeXPLzAhM?feature=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43ghM1RHf ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wepLHBUWj ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbk3lA6zC ... ure=shared
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: The God(s): Deconstructing Religious & Magical Thinking
This is a bit curious:
https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDis ... ID=1130668
The people have dark skin, but worship images that have light skin, due to the prestige attached to that light skin, they are basically worshipping white people, which is pretty disturbing as a former colonial place that got the racist colorist treatment and stratification added to their caste prejudices. The ore ancient idols didn't seem to mind making idols out of materials making them look very dark, even darker than themselves, since they seemed to recognize that these were not people anyway, and so many were said to be "black" and "dark".
Another trend going on apparently is that atheists are supposedly trying to tell other people how to conduct their religion and what they can and can't do and that keeping a statue is "appropriation". There are also people who are racist trying to keep their religions race exclusive. Then there are others, from outside of the ethnicities historically involved trying to make demands and commands and act as authorities on matters too, it is a "sh*t show".
I got onto this topic because of looking for ordinary Western news on YouTube and getting inundated with Hindu and Indian stuff that must have put in their SEO tags "latest news":
https://youtube.com/shorts/22qHiMVlHlQ?feature=shared
This lady got in trouble for doing this, which numerous others have done, so the question was what is the problem in her case? No answer is forthcoming, no one will just say what the freaking problem is supposed to be!!!!! It is so infuriating. Anyway, now she is writhing in the hospital as if she is being divinely punished for this. I am wondering if the hate came because of her last name, being her husband's last name, is what is stirring problems for bad people since her name is Malik, which is typically Muslim, but she is a Hindu seemingly and also historically the word "Hindu" was applied to Muslims who also very commonly syncretized and included Kali into their religion, but that has been wiped out to the very edges of anyone's historical understandings in favor of a clean cut lie and neat categories and divisions and re-using words that were applied to other things, for new things, and then mistakenly being deceived into thinking those terms were always being applied to what they are only more recently being used for, anachronistically and retroactively retconning and altering things, skewing them so that a false picture is presented.
https://youtu.be/C2YlTszCzJM?feature=shared
So this video claims it was because of what she was wearing before her transformation? As if people don't wear other things before they get into costumes? Wtf?
Then it claims the whole Muslim thing, where the guy showed his big Shiva tattoo and that he is a Hindu, but fir some reason is fascinated by Muslim names and made his social media name Muslim and all his kids names Muslim in a now extremely racist, basically N*zi country under the Hindutva government advised by Iz.
I think it must have just mainly been the Muslim angle, and his link to Shiva is also interesting because Shiva is always accompanied by strays, outlaws, outliers, demons, and ghosts, so Muslims would also be part of those adharmic categories as "mlecca".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha
https://hinduism.meta.stackexchange.com ... -offensive
"
And surrounded by the Brahmanas, that Brahmana will exterminate all the mlecchas wherever those low and despicable persons may take refuge.
"
The whole foreboding and dark prophecy of what may be occurring right now:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book ... c7469.html
"
"Vaisampayana said 'Yudhishthira, the son of Kunti, once more asked the great Muni Markandeya about the future course of the government of the Earth.
"And Yudhishthira said,
'O you foremost of all speakers, O Muni of Bhrigu’s race, that which we have heard from you about the destruction and re-birth of all things at the end of the Yuga, is, indeed, full of wonder! I am filled with curiosity, however, in respect of what may happen in the Kali age. When morality and virtue will be at an end, what will remain there! What will be the prowess of men in that age, what their food, and what their amusements? What will be the period of life at the end of the Yuga? What also is the limit, having attained which the Krita age will begin anew? Tell me all in detail, O Muni, for all that you narratest is varied and delightful.'
"Thus addressed, that foremost of Munis began his discourse again, delighting that tiger of the Vrishni race and the sons of Pandu as well.
And Markandeya said,
'Listen, O monarch, to all that has been seen and heard by me, and to all, O king of kings, that has been known to me by intuition from the grace of the God of gods! O bull of the Bharata race, listen to me as I narrate the future history of the world during the sinful age.
O bull of the Bharata race, in the Krita age, everything was free from deceit and guile and avarice and covetousness; and morality like a bull was among men, with all the four legs complete.
In the Treta age sin took away one of these legs and morality had three legs.
In the Dvapara, sin and morality are mixed half and half; and accordingly morality is said to have two legs only.
In the dark age (of Kali), O you best of the Bharata race, morality mixed with three parts of sin lives by the side of men. Accordingly morality then is said to wait on men, with only a fourth part of itself remaining.
Know, O Yudhishthira, that the period of life, the energy, intellect and the physical strength of men decrease in every Yuga! O Pandava, the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaisyas and Sudras, (in the Kali age) will practise morality and virtue deceitfully and men in general will deceive their fellows by spreading the net of virtue.
And men with false reputation of learning will, by their acts, cause Truth to be contracted and concealed. And in consequence of the shortness of their lives they will not be able to acquire much knowledge. And in consequence of the littleness of their knowledge, they will have no wisdom. And for this, covetousness and avarice will overwhelm them all. And wedded to avarice and wrath and ignorance and lust men will entertain animosities towards one another, desiring to take one another’s lives. And Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaisyas with their virtue contracted and divested of asceticism and truth will all be reduced to an equality with the Sudras
. And the lowest orders of men will rise to the position of the intermediate ones, and those in intermediate stations will, without doubt, descend to the level of the lowest ones. Even such, O Yudhishthira, will become the state of the world at the end of the Yuga. Of robes those will be regarded the best that are made of flax and of grain the Paspalum frumentacea[1] will be regarded the best. Towards this period men will regard their wives as their (only) friends. And men will live on fish and milk, goats and sheep, for cows will be extinct.
And towards that period, even they that are always observant of vows, will become covetous. And opposed to one another, men will, at such a time, seek one another’s lives; and divested of Yuga, people will become atheists and thieves. And they will even dig the banks of streams with their spades and sow grains thereon. And even those places will prove barren for them at such a time. And those men who are devoted to ceremonial rites in honour of the deceased and of the gods, will be avaricious and will also appropriate and enjoy what belongs to others.
The father will enjoy what belongs to the son; and the son, what belongs to the father. And those things will also be enjoyed by men in such times, the enjoyment of which has been forbidden in the scriptures. And the Brahmanas, speaking disrespectfully of the Vedas, will not practise vows, and their understanding clouded by the science of disputation, they will no longer perform sacrifices and the Homa.
And deceived by the false science of reasons, they will direct their hearts towards everything mean and low. And men will till low lands for cultivation and employ cows and calves that are one year old, in drawing the plough and carrying burdens. And sons having slain their sires, and sires having slain their sons will incur no opprobrium. And they will frequently save themselves from anxiety by such deeds, and even glory in them.
And the whole world will be filled with mleccha behaviour and notions and ceremonies, and sacrifices will cease and joy will be nowhere and general rejoicing will disappear. And men will rob the possession of helpless persons of those that are friendless and of wisdoms also. And, possessed of small energy and strength, without knowledge and given to avarice and folly and sinful practices men will accept with joy the gifts made by wicked people with words of contempt.
And, O son of Kunti, the kings of the earth, with hearts wedded to sin without knowledge and always boastful of their wisdom, will challenge one another from desire of taking one another’s life. And the Kshatriyas also towards the end of such a period will become the thorns of the earth. And filled with avarice and swelling with pride and vanity and, unable and unwilling to protect (their subjects), they will take pleasure in inflicting punishments only. And attacking and repeating their attacks upon the good and the honest, and feeling no pity for the latter, even when they will cry in grief, the Kshatriyas will, O Bharata, rob these of their wives and wealth.
And no one will ask for a girl (for purposes of marriage) and no one will give away a girl (for such purposes), but the girls will themselves choose their lords, when the end of the Yuga comes. And the kings of the earth with souls steeped in ignorance, and discontented with what they have, will at such a time, rob their subjects by every means in their power. And without doubt the whole world will be mlecchified.[2] And when the end of the Yuga comes, the right hand will deceive the left; and the left, the right.
And men with false reputation of learning will contract Truth and the old will betray the senselessness of the young, and the young will betray the dotage of the old. And cowards will have the reputation of bravery and the brave will be cheerless like cowards. And towards the end of the Yuga men will cease to trust one another. And full of avarice and folly the whole world will have but one kind of food. And sin will increase and prosper, while virtue will fade and cease to flourish.
And Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaisyas will disappear, leaving, O king, no remnants of their orders. And all men towards the end of the Yuga will become members of one common order, without distinction of any kind. And sires will not forgive sons, and sons will not forgive sires. And when the end approaches, wives will not wait upon and serve their husbands. And at such a time men will seek those countries where wheat and barley form the staple food.
And, O monarch, both men and women will become perfectly free in their behaviour and will not tolerate one another’s acts. And, O Yudhishthira, the whole world will be mlecchified. And men will cease to gratify the gods by offerings of Sraddhas. And no one will listen to the words of others and no one will be regarded as a preceptor by another.
And, O ruler of men, intellectual darkness will envelop the whole earth, and the life of man will then be measured by sixteen years, on attaining to which age death will ensue. And girls of five or six years of age will bring forth children and boys of seven or eight years of age will become fathers.
And, O tiger among kings, when the end of the Yuga will come, the wife will never be content with her husband, nor the husband with his wife. And the possessions of men will never be much, and people will falsely bear the marks of religion, and jealousy and malice will fill the world.
And no one will, at that time, be a giver (of wealth or anything else) in respect to any one else. And the inhabited regions of the earth will be afflicted with dearth and famine, and the highways will be filled with lustful men and women of evil repute. And, at such a time, the women will also entertain an aversion towards their husbands. And without doubt all men will adopt the behaviour of the mlecchas, become omnivorous without distinction, and cruel in all their acts, when the end of the Yuga will come.
And, O you foremost of the Bharatas, urged by avarice, men will, at that time, deceive one another when they sell and purchase. And without a knowledge of the ordinance, men will perform ceremonies and rites, and, indeed, behave as lists them, when the end of the Yuga comes. And when the end of the Yuga comes, urged by their very dispositions, men will act cruelly, and speak ill of one another. And people will, without compunction, destroy trees and gardens. And men will be filled with anxiety as regards the means of living.
And, O king, overwhelmed with covetousness, men will kill Brahmanas and appropriate and enjoy the possessions of their victims. And the regenerate ones, oppressed by Sudras, and afflicted with fear, and crying Oh and Alas, will wander over the earth without anybody to protect them. And when men will begin to slay one another, and become wicked and fierce and without any respect for animal life, then will the Yuga come to an end.
And, O king, even the foremost of the regenerate ones, afflicted by robbers, will, like crows, fly in terror and with speed, and seek refuge, O perpetuator of the Kuru race, in rivers and mountains and inaccessible regions.
And always oppressed by bad rulers with burdens of taxes, the foremost of the regenerate classes, O lord of the earth, will, in those terrible times, take leave of all patience and do improper acts by becoming even the servants of the Sudras. And Sudras will expound the scriptures, and Brahmanas will wait upon and listen to them, and settle their course of duty accepting such interpretations as their guides. And the low will become the high, and the course of things will look contrary.
And renouncing the gods, men will worship bones and other relics deposited within walls. And, at the end of the Yuga, the Sudras will cease to wait upon and serve the Brahmanas. And in the asylums of great Rishis, and the teaching institutions of Brahmanas, and in places sacred to the gods and sacrificial compounds, and in sacred tanks, the earth will be disfigured with tombs and pillars containing bony relics and not graced with temples dedicated to the gods. All this will take place at the end of the Yuga, and know that these are the signs of the end of the Yuga.
And when men become fierce and destitute of virtue and carnivorous and addicted to intoxicating drinks, then does the Yuga come to an end. And, O monarch, when flowers will be begot within flowers, and fruits within fruits, then will the Yuga come to an end. And the clouds will pour rain unseasonably when the end of the Yuga approaches. And, at that time, ceremonial rites of men will not follow one another in due order, and the Sudras will quarrel with the Brahmanas.
And the earth will soon be full of mlecchas, and the Brahmanas will fly in all directions for fear of the burthen of taxes. And all distinctions between men will cease as regards conduct and behaviour, and afflicted with honorary tasks and offices, people will fly to woody retreats, subsisting on fruits and roots.
And the world will be so afflicted, that rectitude of conduct will cease to be exhibited anywhere. And disciples will set at naught the instructions of preceptors, and seek even to injure them. And preceptors impoverished will be disregarded by men. And friends and relatives and kinsmen will perform friendly offices for the sake of the wealth only that is possessed by a person. And when the end of the Yuga comes, everybody will be in want.
And all the points of the horizon will be ablaze, and the stars and stellar groups will be destitute of brilliancy, and the planets and planetary conjunctions will be inauspicious. And the course of the winds will be confused and agitated, and innumerable meteors will flash through the sky, foreboding evil. And the Sun will appear with six others of the same kind. And all around there will be din and uproar, and everywhere there will be conflagrations. And the Sun, from the hour of his rising to that of setting, will be enveloped by Rahu. And the deity of a thousand eyes will shower rain unseasonably.
And when the end of the Yuga comes, crops will not grow in abundance. And the women will always be sharp in speech and pitiless and fond of weeping. And they will never abide by the commands of their husbands. And when the end of the Yuga comes, sons will slay fathers and mothers. And women, living uncontrolled, will slay their husbands and sons.
And, O king, when the end of the Yuga comes, Rahu will swallow the Sun unseasonably. And fires will blaze up on all sides. And travellers unable to obtain food and drink and shelter even when they ask for these, will lie down on the wayside refraining from urging their solicitations. And when the end of the Yuga comes, crows and snakes and vultures and kites and other animals and birds will utter frightful and dissonant cries.
And when the end of the Yuga comes, men will cast away and neglect their friends and relatives and attendants. And, O monarch, when the end of the Yuga comes, men abandoning the countries and directions and towns and cities of their occupation, will seek for new ones, one after another. And people will wander over the earth, uttering, 'O father, O son', and such other frightful and rending cries.
(Markandeya continued, )
"And when those terrible times will be over, the creation will begin anew. And men will again be created and distributed into the four orders beginning with Brahmanas. And about that time, in order that men may increase, Providence, according to its pleasure, will once more become propitious.
And then when the Sun, the Moon, and Vrihaspati will, with the constellation Pushya[3], enter the same sign, the Krita age will begin again. And the clouds will commence to shower seasonably, and the stars and stellar conjunctions will become auspicious. And the planets, duly revolving in their orbits, will become exceedingly propitious. And all around, there will be prosperity and abundance and health and peace.
And commissioned by Time, a Brahmana of the name of Kalki will take his birth. And he will glorify Vishnu and possess great energy, great intelligence, and great prowess. And he will take his birth in a town of the name of Sambhala in an auspicious Brahmana family. And vehicles and weapons, and warriors and arms, and coats of mail will be at his disposal as soon as he will think of them. And he will be the king of kings, and ever victorious with the strength of virtue.
And he will restore order and peace in this world crowded with creatures and contradictory in its course. And that blazing Brahmana of mighty intellect, having appeared, will destroy all things. And he will be the Destroyer of all, and will inaugurate a new Yuga. And surrounded by the Brahmanas, that Brahmana will exterminate all the mlecchas wherever those low and despicable persons may take refuge."
"
"
@lakhmirsaharan9297
9 days ago
Why people watch them .. they r earning money
hurting religious sentiments
@aFoxyFox.
0 seconds ago
Hello, can you explain to me how they are "hurting religious sentiments"? I really don't understand what the issue is, I've been looking everywhere online and can't find a clear answer.
"
There won't be an answer, because these are parrots who don't even know what they are saying, it is like how in America and perhaps elsewhere now they squawk "Woke! Woke!"
https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comme ... ion_i_was/
https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comme ... oom_if_im/
What is this? Why are the people so disgusting? If it is a God and they like it, and if they think it is real or do not think it is real, how can it be horded up by a certain cultural group if it is supposed to represent something so big? Like, who has the right to say who can put up a picture of the moon or not? Even ASKING for permission from people is making them act like they are anyone to say anything and no one ever is or can be.
This stuff is really repulsive to me.
"
KingBlackthorn1
OP
•
4y ago
Than you! I was thinking of incorporating Lord Shiva into the ways I do with Norse deities, which is a weekly ritual where I make sure to be in clean clothing, totally washed and where I give the main offering, however, each day after that I just pray in front of the statue, picture, offering bowl however I see fit with not much strict need for clean clothing right there type of thing. Could this be seen as offensive to Lord Shiva?
Upvote
10
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/ukwritr avatar
ukwritr
•
4y ago
•
Edited 4y ago
That's fine. Some people take murtis much more seriously than other people, as long as you're treating it with respect and not as a fashion accessory it's all good IMO.
If you make an offering then yeah follow the rules about no alcohol, meat, or eggs. Dairy is good (encouraged in fact), as long as it is responsibly sourced from organic free-range farms. Flowers and plants are also good. If you're offering food then it should be sattvic.
"
Are these children? Why are they begging for "authorities" to greenlight anything that they do? The guy calls himself ""King" and is such a wimp?
"
k7pu
•
4y ago
•
Edited 4y ago
All the food offerings you ask to avoid are the very things offered in certain cultures. These may ring true for you but unnecessary to apply to someone who is not from a similar mindset. Hinduism is full of examples of aberrant behaviour being rewarded by the Gods, including Shiva. Honesty of intention matters more. Edit: here is an example of aberrant behaviour being rewarded:
https://yogamysticism.today/mystical-li ... a-nayanar/
"
https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/ques ... t-of-kalki
"
As per Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (Bhāgavata Purāṇa): Skandha 12: Adhyay 2:
विचरन्नाशुना क्षौण्यां हयेनाप्रतिमद्युति: ।
नृपलिङ्गच्छदो दस्यून्कोटिशो निहनिष्यति ॥ २० ॥
Displaying His unequaled effulgence and riding with great speed, He will kill by the millions those thieves who have dared dress as kings.
"
"
2
"meat-eaters posing as kings" - you need to find a better translation. The word used is "mleccha." It doesn't translate to "meat-eaters." Kshatriya kings are allowed to hunt and eat meat. ISKCON translations seem to convert gullible readers to vegetarians with wrong and misleading interpretations like this. –
Say No To Censorship
CommentedJul 19, 2019 at 18:09
"
"
1
I don't think atheists and Buddhists are directly mentioned. This is how Srila Prabhupada choose to translate/interpret it. Corruption in my view. –
Vyper
CommentedJul 19, 2019 at 20:09
@Viper91 The words used are: 1) bauddha 2) pāṣaṇḍa (heterodox/heretical) 3) mleccha –
Say No To Censorship
CommentedJul 22, 2019 at 18:47
"
Look how everyone is manipulating text to try to target different groups of people.
Humans are horrible, gross, some of them, they make me want to PUKE!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki
"
While there is no mention of Kalki in the Vedic literature,[35][36] the epithet "Kalmallkinam", meaning "Brilliant Remover Of Darkness", is found in the Vedic Literature for Rudra (later Shiva), has been interpreted to be "Forerunner Of Kalki".[35]
Kalki appears for the first time in the great war epic Mahabharata.[16] The mention of Kalki in the Mahabharata occurs only once, over the verses 3.188.85–3.189.6.[8] The Kalki incarnation is found in the Maha Puranas such as Vishnu Purana,[37] Matsya Purana, and the Bhagavata Purana.[38][39] However, the details relating the Kalki mythologies are divergent between the epic and the Puranas, as well as within the Puranas.[40][16]
In the Mahabharata, according to Hiltebeitel, Kalki is an extension of the Parashurama incarnation legend, where a Brahmin warrior destroys Kshatriyas who were abusing their power to spread chaos, evil, and the persecution of the powerless. The epic character of Kalki restores dharma, restores justice in the world, but does not end the cycle of existence.[16][41] The Kalkin section in the Mahabharata is present in the Markandeya section. There, states Luis Reimann, can "hardly be any doubt that the Markandeya section is a late addition to the epic. Making Yudhishthira ask a question about conditions at the end of Kali and the beginning of Krta — something far removed from his own situation — is merely a device for justifying the inclusion of this subject matter in the epic."[42]
According to Cornelia Dimmitt, the "clear and tidy" systematization of Kalki and the remaining nine incarnations of Vishnu is not found in any of the Maha Puranas.[43] The coverage of Kalki in these Hindu texts is scant, in contrast to the legends of Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Vamana, Narasimha, and Krishna, all of whom are repeatedly and extensively described. According to Dimmitt, this was likely because just like the concept of the Buddha as a Vishnu Incarnation, the concept of Kalki was "somewhat in flux" when the major Puranas were being compiled.[43]
This Kalki concept may have further developed in the Hindu texts both as a reaction to the invasions of the Indian subcontinent by various armies over the centuries from its northwest, and in reaction to the mythologies these invaders brought with them.[8][44] Similarly, the Buddhist Literature dated to the late 1st millennium, a future Buddha Maitreya is depicted as Kalki.[45][46][47] According to John Mitchiner, the Kalki concept owes "in some measure" to J, Christian, Zoroastrian and other concepts.[48] Mitchiner states that some Puranas such as the Yuga Purana do not mention Kalki and offer a different cosmology than the other Puranas. The Yuga Purana mythologizes in greater details the post-Maurya era Indo-Greek and Saka era, while the Manvantara theme containing the Kalki idea is mythologized greater in other Puranas.[49][16] Luis Gonzales-Reimann concurs with Mitchiner, stating that the Yuga Purana does not mention Kalki.[50] In other texts such as the sections 2.36 and 2.37 of the Vayu Purana, states Reimann, it is not Kalkin who ends the Kali Yuga, but a different character named Pramiti.[51] Most historians, states Arvind Sharma, link the development of Kalki mythology in Hinduism to the suffering caused by foreign invasions.[52] Unlike other messianic concepts, Kalki's purpose is to destroy the invaders and heretics in order to reverse the current age Kali Yuga, the age of evil.[53]
"
"
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, claimed to be the Kalki Avatar, as well as the Mahdi.[59]
In the Baháʼí Faith, Baháʼu'lláh is identified as Kalki as well as the prophesied redeeming messenger of God at the end of the world, as claimed in the Bábí religion, Judaism (Mashiach), Christianity (Messiah), Islam (Masih and Mahdi), Buddhism (Maitreya), Zoroastrianism (Shah Bahram), and other religions.[60][61][62]
Kalki Bhagawan, born Vijaykumar Naidu, born on 7 March 1949, founder of Oneness University.[63]
Samael Aun Weor, founder of the Universal Christian Gnostic Movement.[64]
Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi of Kalki Avatar Foundation.[65]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki_Bhagawan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi
https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDis ... ID=1130668
The people have dark skin, but worship images that have light skin, due to the prestige attached to that light skin, they are basically worshipping white people, which is pretty disturbing as a former colonial place that got the racist colorist treatment and stratification added to their caste prejudices. The ore ancient idols didn't seem to mind making idols out of materials making them look very dark, even darker than themselves, since they seemed to recognize that these were not people anyway, and so many were said to be "black" and "dark".
Another trend going on apparently is that atheists are supposedly trying to tell other people how to conduct their religion and what they can and can't do and that keeping a statue is "appropriation". There are also people who are racist trying to keep their religions race exclusive. Then there are others, from outside of the ethnicities historically involved trying to make demands and commands and act as authorities on matters too, it is a "sh*t show".
I got onto this topic because of looking for ordinary Western news on YouTube and getting inundated with Hindu and Indian stuff that must have put in their SEO tags "latest news":
https://youtube.com/shorts/22qHiMVlHlQ?feature=shared
This lady got in trouble for doing this, which numerous others have done, so the question was what is the problem in her case? No answer is forthcoming, no one will just say what the freaking problem is supposed to be!!!!! It is so infuriating. Anyway, now she is writhing in the hospital as if she is being divinely punished for this. I am wondering if the hate came because of her last name, being her husband's last name, is what is stirring problems for bad people since her name is Malik, which is typically Muslim, but she is a Hindu seemingly and also historically the word "Hindu" was applied to Muslims who also very commonly syncretized and included Kali into their religion, but that has been wiped out to the very edges of anyone's historical understandings in favor of a clean cut lie and neat categories and divisions and re-using words that were applied to other things, for new things, and then mistakenly being deceived into thinking those terms were always being applied to what they are only more recently being used for, anachronistically and retroactively retconning and altering things, skewing them so that a false picture is presented.
https://youtu.be/C2YlTszCzJM?feature=shared
So this video claims it was because of what she was wearing before her transformation? As if people don't wear other things before they get into costumes? Wtf?
Then it claims the whole Muslim thing, where the guy showed his big Shiva tattoo and that he is a Hindu, but fir some reason is fascinated by Muslim names and made his social media name Muslim and all his kids names Muslim in a now extremely racist, basically N*zi country under the Hindutva government advised by Iz.
I think it must have just mainly been the Muslim angle, and his link to Shiva is also interesting because Shiva is always accompanied by strays, outlaws, outliers, demons, and ghosts, so Muslims would also be part of those adharmic categories as "mlecca".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha
https://hinduism.meta.stackexchange.com ... -offensive
"
And surrounded by the Brahmanas, that Brahmana will exterminate all the mlecchas wherever those low and despicable persons may take refuge.
"
The whole foreboding and dark prophecy of what may be occurring right now:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book ... c7469.html
"
"Vaisampayana said 'Yudhishthira, the son of Kunti, once more asked the great Muni Markandeya about the future course of the government of the Earth.
"And Yudhishthira said,
'O you foremost of all speakers, O Muni of Bhrigu’s race, that which we have heard from you about the destruction and re-birth of all things at the end of the Yuga, is, indeed, full of wonder! I am filled with curiosity, however, in respect of what may happen in the Kali age. When morality and virtue will be at an end, what will remain there! What will be the prowess of men in that age, what their food, and what their amusements? What will be the period of life at the end of the Yuga? What also is the limit, having attained which the Krita age will begin anew? Tell me all in detail, O Muni, for all that you narratest is varied and delightful.'
"Thus addressed, that foremost of Munis began his discourse again, delighting that tiger of the Vrishni race and the sons of Pandu as well.
And Markandeya said,
'Listen, O monarch, to all that has been seen and heard by me, and to all, O king of kings, that has been known to me by intuition from the grace of the God of gods! O bull of the Bharata race, listen to me as I narrate the future history of the world during the sinful age.
O bull of the Bharata race, in the Krita age, everything was free from deceit and guile and avarice and covetousness; and morality like a bull was among men, with all the four legs complete.
In the Treta age sin took away one of these legs and morality had three legs.
In the Dvapara, sin and morality are mixed half and half; and accordingly morality is said to have two legs only.
In the dark age (of Kali), O you best of the Bharata race, morality mixed with three parts of sin lives by the side of men. Accordingly morality then is said to wait on men, with only a fourth part of itself remaining.
Know, O Yudhishthira, that the period of life, the energy, intellect and the physical strength of men decrease in every Yuga! O Pandava, the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaisyas and Sudras, (in the Kali age) will practise morality and virtue deceitfully and men in general will deceive their fellows by spreading the net of virtue.
And men with false reputation of learning will, by their acts, cause Truth to be contracted and concealed. And in consequence of the shortness of their lives they will not be able to acquire much knowledge. And in consequence of the littleness of their knowledge, they will have no wisdom. And for this, covetousness and avarice will overwhelm them all. And wedded to avarice and wrath and ignorance and lust men will entertain animosities towards one another, desiring to take one another’s lives. And Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaisyas with their virtue contracted and divested of asceticism and truth will all be reduced to an equality with the Sudras
. And the lowest orders of men will rise to the position of the intermediate ones, and those in intermediate stations will, without doubt, descend to the level of the lowest ones. Even such, O Yudhishthira, will become the state of the world at the end of the Yuga. Of robes those will be regarded the best that are made of flax and of grain the Paspalum frumentacea[1] will be regarded the best. Towards this period men will regard their wives as their (only) friends. And men will live on fish and milk, goats and sheep, for cows will be extinct.
And towards that period, even they that are always observant of vows, will become covetous. And opposed to one another, men will, at such a time, seek one another’s lives; and divested of Yuga, people will become atheists and thieves. And they will even dig the banks of streams with their spades and sow grains thereon. And even those places will prove barren for them at such a time. And those men who are devoted to ceremonial rites in honour of the deceased and of the gods, will be avaricious and will also appropriate and enjoy what belongs to others.
The father will enjoy what belongs to the son; and the son, what belongs to the father. And those things will also be enjoyed by men in such times, the enjoyment of which has been forbidden in the scriptures. And the Brahmanas, speaking disrespectfully of the Vedas, will not practise vows, and their understanding clouded by the science of disputation, they will no longer perform sacrifices and the Homa.
And deceived by the false science of reasons, they will direct their hearts towards everything mean and low. And men will till low lands for cultivation and employ cows and calves that are one year old, in drawing the plough and carrying burdens. And sons having slain their sires, and sires having slain their sons will incur no opprobrium. And they will frequently save themselves from anxiety by such deeds, and even glory in them.
And the whole world will be filled with mleccha behaviour and notions and ceremonies, and sacrifices will cease and joy will be nowhere and general rejoicing will disappear. And men will rob the possession of helpless persons of those that are friendless and of wisdoms also. And, possessed of small energy and strength, without knowledge and given to avarice and folly and sinful practices men will accept with joy the gifts made by wicked people with words of contempt.
And, O son of Kunti, the kings of the earth, with hearts wedded to sin without knowledge and always boastful of their wisdom, will challenge one another from desire of taking one another’s life. And the Kshatriyas also towards the end of such a period will become the thorns of the earth. And filled with avarice and swelling with pride and vanity and, unable and unwilling to protect (their subjects), they will take pleasure in inflicting punishments only. And attacking and repeating their attacks upon the good and the honest, and feeling no pity for the latter, even when they will cry in grief, the Kshatriyas will, O Bharata, rob these of their wives and wealth.
And no one will ask for a girl (for purposes of marriage) and no one will give away a girl (for such purposes), but the girls will themselves choose their lords, when the end of the Yuga comes. And the kings of the earth with souls steeped in ignorance, and discontented with what they have, will at such a time, rob their subjects by every means in their power. And without doubt the whole world will be mlecchified.[2] And when the end of the Yuga comes, the right hand will deceive the left; and the left, the right.
And men with false reputation of learning will contract Truth and the old will betray the senselessness of the young, and the young will betray the dotage of the old. And cowards will have the reputation of bravery and the brave will be cheerless like cowards. And towards the end of the Yuga men will cease to trust one another. And full of avarice and folly the whole world will have but one kind of food. And sin will increase and prosper, while virtue will fade and cease to flourish.
And Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaisyas will disappear, leaving, O king, no remnants of their orders. And all men towards the end of the Yuga will become members of one common order, without distinction of any kind. And sires will not forgive sons, and sons will not forgive sires. And when the end approaches, wives will not wait upon and serve their husbands. And at such a time men will seek those countries where wheat and barley form the staple food.
And, O monarch, both men and women will become perfectly free in their behaviour and will not tolerate one another’s acts. And, O Yudhishthira, the whole world will be mlecchified. And men will cease to gratify the gods by offerings of Sraddhas. And no one will listen to the words of others and no one will be regarded as a preceptor by another.
And, O ruler of men, intellectual darkness will envelop the whole earth, and the life of man will then be measured by sixteen years, on attaining to which age death will ensue. And girls of five or six years of age will bring forth children and boys of seven or eight years of age will become fathers.
And, O tiger among kings, when the end of the Yuga will come, the wife will never be content with her husband, nor the husband with his wife. And the possessions of men will never be much, and people will falsely bear the marks of religion, and jealousy and malice will fill the world.
And no one will, at that time, be a giver (of wealth or anything else) in respect to any one else. And the inhabited regions of the earth will be afflicted with dearth and famine, and the highways will be filled with lustful men and women of evil repute. And, at such a time, the women will also entertain an aversion towards their husbands. And without doubt all men will adopt the behaviour of the mlecchas, become omnivorous without distinction, and cruel in all their acts, when the end of the Yuga will come.
And, O you foremost of the Bharatas, urged by avarice, men will, at that time, deceive one another when they sell and purchase. And without a knowledge of the ordinance, men will perform ceremonies and rites, and, indeed, behave as lists them, when the end of the Yuga comes. And when the end of the Yuga comes, urged by their very dispositions, men will act cruelly, and speak ill of one another. And people will, without compunction, destroy trees and gardens. And men will be filled with anxiety as regards the means of living.
And, O king, overwhelmed with covetousness, men will kill Brahmanas and appropriate and enjoy the possessions of their victims. And the regenerate ones, oppressed by Sudras, and afflicted with fear, and crying Oh and Alas, will wander over the earth without anybody to protect them. And when men will begin to slay one another, and become wicked and fierce and without any respect for animal life, then will the Yuga come to an end.
And, O king, even the foremost of the regenerate ones, afflicted by robbers, will, like crows, fly in terror and with speed, and seek refuge, O perpetuator of the Kuru race, in rivers and mountains and inaccessible regions.
And always oppressed by bad rulers with burdens of taxes, the foremost of the regenerate classes, O lord of the earth, will, in those terrible times, take leave of all patience and do improper acts by becoming even the servants of the Sudras. And Sudras will expound the scriptures, and Brahmanas will wait upon and listen to them, and settle their course of duty accepting such interpretations as their guides. And the low will become the high, and the course of things will look contrary.
And renouncing the gods, men will worship bones and other relics deposited within walls. And, at the end of the Yuga, the Sudras will cease to wait upon and serve the Brahmanas. And in the asylums of great Rishis, and the teaching institutions of Brahmanas, and in places sacred to the gods and sacrificial compounds, and in sacred tanks, the earth will be disfigured with tombs and pillars containing bony relics and not graced with temples dedicated to the gods. All this will take place at the end of the Yuga, and know that these are the signs of the end of the Yuga.
And when men become fierce and destitute of virtue and carnivorous and addicted to intoxicating drinks, then does the Yuga come to an end. And, O monarch, when flowers will be begot within flowers, and fruits within fruits, then will the Yuga come to an end. And the clouds will pour rain unseasonably when the end of the Yuga approaches. And, at that time, ceremonial rites of men will not follow one another in due order, and the Sudras will quarrel with the Brahmanas.
And the earth will soon be full of mlecchas, and the Brahmanas will fly in all directions for fear of the burthen of taxes. And all distinctions between men will cease as regards conduct and behaviour, and afflicted with honorary tasks and offices, people will fly to woody retreats, subsisting on fruits and roots.
And the world will be so afflicted, that rectitude of conduct will cease to be exhibited anywhere. And disciples will set at naught the instructions of preceptors, and seek even to injure them. And preceptors impoverished will be disregarded by men. And friends and relatives and kinsmen will perform friendly offices for the sake of the wealth only that is possessed by a person. And when the end of the Yuga comes, everybody will be in want.
And all the points of the horizon will be ablaze, and the stars and stellar groups will be destitute of brilliancy, and the planets and planetary conjunctions will be inauspicious. And the course of the winds will be confused and agitated, and innumerable meteors will flash through the sky, foreboding evil. And the Sun will appear with six others of the same kind. And all around there will be din and uproar, and everywhere there will be conflagrations. And the Sun, from the hour of his rising to that of setting, will be enveloped by Rahu. And the deity of a thousand eyes will shower rain unseasonably.
And when the end of the Yuga comes, crops will not grow in abundance. And the women will always be sharp in speech and pitiless and fond of weeping. And they will never abide by the commands of their husbands. And when the end of the Yuga comes, sons will slay fathers and mothers. And women, living uncontrolled, will slay their husbands and sons.
And, O king, when the end of the Yuga comes, Rahu will swallow the Sun unseasonably. And fires will blaze up on all sides. And travellers unable to obtain food and drink and shelter even when they ask for these, will lie down on the wayside refraining from urging their solicitations. And when the end of the Yuga comes, crows and snakes and vultures and kites and other animals and birds will utter frightful and dissonant cries.
And when the end of the Yuga comes, men will cast away and neglect their friends and relatives and attendants. And, O monarch, when the end of the Yuga comes, men abandoning the countries and directions and towns and cities of their occupation, will seek for new ones, one after another. And people will wander over the earth, uttering, 'O father, O son', and such other frightful and rending cries.
(Markandeya continued, )
"And when those terrible times will be over, the creation will begin anew. And men will again be created and distributed into the four orders beginning with Brahmanas. And about that time, in order that men may increase, Providence, according to its pleasure, will once more become propitious.
And then when the Sun, the Moon, and Vrihaspati will, with the constellation Pushya[3], enter the same sign, the Krita age will begin again. And the clouds will commence to shower seasonably, and the stars and stellar conjunctions will become auspicious. And the planets, duly revolving in their orbits, will become exceedingly propitious. And all around, there will be prosperity and abundance and health and peace.
And commissioned by Time, a Brahmana of the name of Kalki will take his birth. And he will glorify Vishnu and possess great energy, great intelligence, and great prowess. And he will take his birth in a town of the name of Sambhala in an auspicious Brahmana family. And vehicles and weapons, and warriors and arms, and coats of mail will be at his disposal as soon as he will think of them. And he will be the king of kings, and ever victorious with the strength of virtue.
And he will restore order and peace in this world crowded with creatures and contradictory in its course. And that blazing Brahmana of mighty intellect, having appeared, will destroy all things. And he will be the Destroyer of all, and will inaugurate a new Yuga. And surrounded by the Brahmanas, that Brahmana will exterminate all the mlecchas wherever those low and despicable persons may take refuge."
"
"
@lakhmirsaharan9297
9 days ago
Why people watch them .. they r earning money
hurting religious sentiments@aFoxyFox.
0 seconds ago
Hello, can you explain to me how they are "hurting religious sentiments"? I really don't understand what the issue is, I've been looking everywhere online and can't find a clear answer.
"
There won't be an answer, because these are parrots who don't even know what they are saying, it is like how in America and perhaps elsewhere now they squawk "Woke! Woke!"
https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comme ... ion_i_was/
https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comme ... oom_if_im/
What is this? Why are the people so disgusting? If it is a God and they like it, and if they think it is real or do not think it is real, how can it be horded up by a certain cultural group if it is supposed to represent something so big? Like, who has the right to say who can put up a picture of the moon or not? Even ASKING for permission from people is making them act like they are anyone to say anything and no one ever is or can be.
This stuff is really repulsive to me.
"
KingBlackthorn1
OP
•
4y ago
Than you! I was thinking of incorporating Lord Shiva into the ways I do with Norse deities, which is a weekly ritual where I make sure to be in clean clothing, totally washed and where I give the main offering, however, each day after that I just pray in front of the statue, picture, offering bowl however I see fit with not much strict need for clean clothing right there type of thing. Could this be seen as offensive to Lord Shiva?
Upvote
10
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/ukwritr avatar
ukwritr
•
4y ago
•
Edited 4y ago
That's fine. Some people take murtis much more seriously than other people, as long as you're treating it with respect and not as a fashion accessory it's all good IMO.
If you make an offering then yeah follow the rules about no alcohol, meat, or eggs. Dairy is good (encouraged in fact), as long as it is responsibly sourced from organic free-range farms. Flowers and plants are also good. If you're offering food then it should be sattvic.
"
Are these children? Why are they begging for "authorities" to greenlight anything that they do? The guy calls himself ""King" and is such a wimp?
"
k7pu
•
4y ago
•
Edited 4y ago
All the food offerings you ask to avoid are the very things offered in certain cultures. These may ring true for you but unnecessary to apply to someone who is not from a similar mindset. Hinduism is full of examples of aberrant behaviour being rewarded by the Gods, including Shiva. Honesty of intention matters more. Edit: here is an example of aberrant behaviour being rewarded:
https://yogamysticism.today/mystical-li ... a-nayanar/
"
https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/ques ... t-of-kalki
"
As per Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (Bhāgavata Purāṇa): Skandha 12: Adhyay 2:
विचरन्नाशुना क्षौण्यां हयेनाप्रतिमद्युति: ।
नृपलिङ्गच्छदो दस्यून्कोटिशो निहनिष्यति ॥ २० ॥
Displaying His unequaled effulgence and riding with great speed, He will kill by the millions those thieves who have dared dress as kings.
"
"
2
"meat-eaters posing as kings" - you need to find a better translation. The word used is "mleccha." It doesn't translate to "meat-eaters." Kshatriya kings are allowed to hunt and eat meat. ISKCON translations seem to convert gullible readers to vegetarians with wrong and misleading interpretations like this. –
Say No To Censorship
CommentedJul 19, 2019 at 18:09
"
"
1
I don't think atheists and Buddhists are directly mentioned. This is how Srila Prabhupada choose to translate/interpret it. Corruption in my view. –
Vyper
CommentedJul 19, 2019 at 20:09
@Viper91 The words used are: 1) bauddha 2) pāṣaṇḍa (heterodox/heretical) 3) mleccha –
Say No To Censorship
CommentedJul 22, 2019 at 18:47
"
Look how everyone is manipulating text to try to target different groups of people.
Humans are horrible, gross, some of them, they make me want to PUKE!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki
"
While there is no mention of Kalki in the Vedic literature,[35][36] the epithet "Kalmallkinam", meaning "Brilliant Remover Of Darkness", is found in the Vedic Literature for Rudra (later Shiva), has been interpreted to be "Forerunner Of Kalki".[35]
Kalki appears for the first time in the great war epic Mahabharata.[16] The mention of Kalki in the Mahabharata occurs only once, over the verses 3.188.85–3.189.6.[8] The Kalki incarnation is found in the Maha Puranas such as Vishnu Purana,[37] Matsya Purana, and the Bhagavata Purana.[38][39] However, the details relating the Kalki mythologies are divergent between the epic and the Puranas, as well as within the Puranas.[40][16]
In the Mahabharata, according to Hiltebeitel, Kalki is an extension of the Parashurama incarnation legend, where a Brahmin warrior destroys Kshatriyas who were abusing their power to spread chaos, evil, and the persecution of the powerless. The epic character of Kalki restores dharma, restores justice in the world, but does not end the cycle of existence.[16][41] The Kalkin section in the Mahabharata is present in the Markandeya section. There, states Luis Reimann, can "hardly be any doubt that the Markandeya section is a late addition to the epic. Making Yudhishthira ask a question about conditions at the end of Kali and the beginning of Krta — something far removed from his own situation — is merely a device for justifying the inclusion of this subject matter in the epic."[42]
According to Cornelia Dimmitt, the "clear and tidy" systematization of Kalki and the remaining nine incarnations of Vishnu is not found in any of the Maha Puranas.[43] The coverage of Kalki in these Hindu texts is scant, in contrast to the legends of Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Vamana, Narasimha, and Krishna, all of whom are repeatedly and extensively described. According to Dimmitt, this was likely because just like the concept of the Buddha as a Vishnu Incarnation, the concept of Kalki was "somewhat in flux" when the major Puranas were being compiled.[43]
This Kalki concept may have further developed in the Hindu texts both as a reaction to the invasions of the Indian subcontinent by various armies over the centuries from its northwest, and in reaction to the mythologies these invaders brought with them.[8][44] Similarly, the Buddhist Literature dated to the late 1st millennium, a future Buddha Maitreya is depicted as Kalki.[45][46][47] According to John Mitchiner, the Kalki concept owes "in some measure" to J, Christian, Zoroastrian and other concepts.[48] Mitchiner states that some Puranas such as the Yuga Purana do not mention Kalki and offer a different cosmology than the other Puranas. The Yuga Purana mythologizes in greater details the post-Maurya era Indo-Greek and Saka era, while the Manvantara theme containing the Kalki idea is mythologized greater in other Puranas.[49][16] Luis Gonzales-Reimann concurs with Mitchiner, stating that the Yuga Purana does not mention Kalki.[50] In other texts such as the sections 2.36 and 2.37 of the Vayu Purana, states Reimann, it is not Kalkin who ends the Kali Yuga, but a different character named Pramiti.[51] Most historians, states Arvind Sharma, link the development of Kalki mythology in Hinduism to the suffering caused by foreign invasions.[52] Unlike other messianic concepts, Kalki's purpose is to destroy the invaders and heretics in order to reverse the current age Kali Yuga, the age of evil.[53]
"
"
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, claimed to be the Kalki Avatar, as well as the Mahdi.[59]
In the Baháʼí Faith, Baháʼu'lláh is identified as Kalki as well as the prophesied redeeming messenger of God at the end of the world, as claimed in the Bábí religion, Judaism (Mashiach), Christianity (Messiah), Islam (Masih and Mahdi), Buddhism (Maitreya), Zoroastrianism (Shah Bahram), and other religions.[60][61][62]
Kalki Bhagawan, born Vijaykumar Naidu, born on 7 March 1949, founder of Oneness University.[63]
Samael Aun Weor, founder of the Universal Christian Gnostic Movement.[64]
Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi of Kalki Avatar Foundation.[65]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki_Bhagawan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: The God(s): Deconstructing Religious & Magical Thinking
https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meta ... 7.vii.html
"
Further, some do not think there is anything substantial besides sensible things, but others think there are eternal substances which are more in number and more real; e.g. Plato posited two kinds of substance-the Forms and objects of mathematics-as well as a third kind, viz. the substance of sensible bodies. And Speusippus made still more kinds of substance, beginning with the One, and assuming principles for each kind of substance, one for numbers, another for spatial magnitudes, and then another for the soul; and by going on in this way he multiplies the kinds of substance. And some say Forms and numbers have the same nature, and the other things come after them-lines and planes-until we come to the substance of the material universe and to sensible bodies.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speusippus
"
With this deviation from Plato's doctrine is connected another which takes a wider range. As the ultimate principle, Speusippus would not, with Plato, recognise the Good, but, with others (who doubtless were also Platonists), going back to the older Theologi, maintained that the principles of the universe were to be set down as causes of the good and perfect, but were not the good and perfect itself, which must rather be regarded as the result of generated existence, or development, just as the seeds of plants and animals are not the fully formed plants or animals themselves.[20]
Speusippus [supposes] that supreme beauty and goodness are not present in the beginning, because the beginnings both of plants and of animals are causes, but beauty and completeness are in the effects of these.[21]
"
"
Nevertheless, Speusippus seems to have attributed vital activity to the primordial Unity, as inseparably belonging to it,[25]
"
"
Modern scholars have detected a polemic between Speusippus and Eudoxus of Cnidus concerning the good. Eudoxus also accepts that the Good will be that at which all people aim, but identifies this as pleasure, as opposed to Speusippus' exclusive focus on moral goods. Texts of Aristotle and Aulus Gellius suggest that Speusippus insisted that pleasure was not a good, but that the Good was "in between the opposites of pleasure and pain." It is possible that the dispute between Speusippus and Eudoxus influenced Plato's Philebus (esp. 53c–55a).[28]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudoxus_of_Cnidus
"
Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics,[14] attributes to Eudoxus an argument in favor of hedonism—that is, that pleasure is the ultimate good that activity strives for. According to Aristotle, Eudoxus put forward the following arguments for this position:
All things, rational and irrational, aim at pleasure; things aim at what they believe to be good; a good indication of what the chief good is would be the thing that most things aim at.
Similarly, pleasure's opposite—pain—is universally avoided, which provides additional support for the idea that pleasure is universally considered good.
People don't seek pleasure as a means to something else, but as an end in its own right.
Any other good that you can think of would be better if pleasure were added to it, and it is only by good that good can be increased.
Of all of the things that are good, happiness is peculiar for not being praised, which may show that it is the crowning good.[15]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knidos
"
Knidos was a Hellenic city of high antiquity. According to Herodotus' Histories (I.174), the Cnidians were Lacedaemonian colonists; however, the presence of demiurges there argues for foundation or later influence by other Doric Greeks, possibly Argives. Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca Historica 5.53) claimed that Cnidus was founded by both Lacedaemonians and Argives.[5] Along with Halicarnassus (present day Bodrum, Turkey) and Kos, and the Rhodian cities of Lindos, Kamiros and Ialyssos it formed the Dorian Hexapolis, which held its confederate assemblies on the Triopian headland, and there celebrated games in honour of Apollo, Poseidon and the nymphs.[2] This was also the site of the Temple of Aphrodite, Knidos.
The city was at first governed by an oligarchic senate, composed of sixty members, and presided over by a magistrate; but, though it is proved by inscriptions that the old names continued to a very late period, the constitution underwent a popular transformation. The situation of the city was favourable for commerce, and the Knidians acquired considerable wealth, and were able to colonize the island of Lipara, and founded a city on Corcyra Nigra in the Adriatic. They ultimately submitted to Cyrus, and from the battle of Eurymedon to the latter part of the Peloponnesian War they were subject to Athens.[2] During the Hellenistic age, Knidos boasted a medical school; however, the theory that this school already existed at the beginning of the classical age is an unwarranted extrapolation.[6]
In their expansion into the region, the Romans easily obtained the allegiance of Knidians, and rewarded them for help given against Antiochus III the Great by leaving them the freedom of their city.[2]
Eudoxus, the astronomer, Ctesias, the writer on Persian history, and Sostratus, the builder of the celebrated Pharos at Alexandria, are the most remarkable of the Knidians mentioned in history.[2] Artemidorus, a minor character in the Shakespeare play "Julius Caesar", was also from Knidos.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge_(magistrate)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_ ... te,_Knidos
"
The sanctuary was dedicated to the goddess under her name Aphrodite Euploia or 'Aphrodite of the Fair Voyage', which was her name in her capacity of a sea goddess, an aspect very popular among sailors.[1]
It was a significant sanctuary, famous in the ancient world for hosting the first cult statue of the goddess depicted naked, which was sculptured by Praxiteles in 365 BC. As such, it became a place of pilgrimage, and continued to be so during the Roman Empire. It was a circular Doric temple surrounded with colonnades.[2] Unusually, the temple had doors also at the back, and the statue was not placed in the end of the hall of the temple's cella, but in the middle of the circular temple, making it possible for pilgrims to see the statue from all angles.[3] Around the temple, couches were placed among fragrant bushes, to make it possible for people to make love.[1] The famous temple was the role model for a copy erected at Emperor Hadrian's Villa in Tivoli.
Pausanias wrote:
The Knidians hold Aphrodite in very great honor, and they have sanctuaries of the goddess; the oldest is to her as Doritis (Bountiful ), the next in age as Akraia (Of the Height), while the newest is to the Aphrodite called Knidia by men generally, but Euploia (Fair Voyage) by the Knidians themselves.[4]
If still in use by the 4th-century, it would have been closed during the persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire. The sanctuary was discovered in 1969 by Iris C. Love, who excavated the temple in 1970. At the site, Love found the marble base and fragments of the statue of Aphrodite by Praxiteles.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos
"
The Aphrodite of Knidos (or Cnidus) was an Ancient Greek sculpture of the goddess Aphrodite created by Praxiteles of Athens around the 4th century BC. It was one of the first life-sized representations of the nude female form in Greek history, displaying an alternative idea to male heroic nudity. Praxiteles' Aphrodite was shown nude, reaching for a bath towel while covering her pubis, which, in turn leaves her breasts exposed. Up until this point, Greek sculpture had been dominated by male nude figures. The original Greek sculpture is no longer in existence; however, many Roman copies survive of this influential work of art. Variants of the Venus Pudica (suggesting an action to cover the breasts) are the Venus de' Medici and the Capitoline Venus.
"
"
Because the various copies show different body shapes, poses and accessories, the original can only be described in general terms. It depicted a nude woman, the body twisting in a contrapposto position, with its weight on the right foot. Most copies show Aphrodite covering her pubic area with her right hand, while the left holds drapery which, along with a vase, helps support the figure.[4] In most copies of the sculpture, it is ambiguous whether the Aphrodite is picking up or putting down the drapery.[5] Almost all copies show the head of the sculpture turning to the left.[6] In most copies, the Aphrodite is adorned with some kind of jewellery; on large copies this usually includes an armband on the left arm.[7]
The female nude appeared nearly three centuries after the earliest nude male counterparts in Greek sculpture, the kouros; the female kore figures were clothed. Previously nudity was a heroic uniform assigned only to men. When making the Aphrodite of Knidos, Spivey argues that her iconography can be attributed to Praxiteles creating the statue for the intent of being viewed by male onlookers.[8] Overwhelming evidence from the ancient sources suggests that the Knidian sculpture evoked male responses of sexuality upon viewing the statue.[8] The Aphrodite of Knidos established a canon for the proportions of the female nude.[9][better source needed]
According to Athenaeus and the late-antique rhetorician Choricius of Gaza, Praxiteles used the courtesan Phryne as the model for the Aphrodite, though Clement of Alexandria instead names the model as Cratina.[11] The statue became so widely known and copied that in a humorous anecdote the goddess Aphrodite herself came to Knidos to see it. A lyric epigram of Antipater of Sidon[12] places a hypothetical question on the lips of the goddess herself:
Paris, Adonis, and Anchises saw me naked, Those
are all I know of, but how did Praxiteles contrive it?
A similar epigram is attributed to Plato:
When Cypris saw Cypris at Cnidus, "Alas!" said she; "where did Praxiteles see me naked?"
— Plato, Epigram XVII[13]
According to an epigram from Roman poet Ausonius, Praxiteles never saw what he was not meant to see, but instead sculpted Aphrodite as Ares would have wanted.[14]
The original Aphrodite of Knidos is now lost. It was taken to Constantinople in the fourth century AD,[15] and destroyed, either deliberately[16] or in the fire that destroyed the Palace of Lausos in 476.[17] It is known through its many surviving copies – Kristen Seaman has catalogued 192 surviving ancient copies, making the statue perhaps the most-copied sculpture from antiquity.[18] In his 1933 monograph on the Aphrodite, Christian Blinkenberg argued that the Colonna Venus, in the Vatican's Pio-Clementine Museum, is the most accurate surviving copy; this view is still widely, though not universally, accepted.[19]
"
"
The temple of Aphrodite in Knidos where the statue was displayed is described by two ancient sources, Pliny the Elder in his Natural History and Pseudo-Lucian in his Amores.[20] According to Pliny, the sculpture was housed in a small building, open on all sides – by which he likely meant a monopteros, a colonnade with a roof but no walls.[21] In the description given by Pseudo-Lucian, on the other hand, the building which housed the statue is described as having two doors, and suggests a more confined space than Pliny's description.[22] In excavations at Knidos between 1969 and 1972, Iris Love discovered the remains of a round building which she identified as the temple of Aphrodite. This included a stone inscribed with the letters PRAX, which Love suggested was a statue base for the Knidian Aphrodite.[23]
The statue became a tourist attraction in spite of being a cult image, and a patron of the Knidians. Nicomedes I of Bithynia offered to pay off the enormous debts of the city of Knidos in exchange for the statue, but the Knidians rejected his offer. The statue would have been polychromed,[24] and was so lifelike that it even aroused men sexually, as witnessed by the tradition that a young man broke into the temple at night and attempted to copulate with the statue, leaving a stain on it. An attendant priestess told visitors that upon being discovered, he was so ashamed that he hurled himself over a cliff near the edge of the temple.[25] This story is recorded in the dialogue Erotes (section 15), traditionally attributed to Lucian of Samosata.[26]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonna_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitoline_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barberini_Venus
"
It broke the world auction record for an antiquity after selling for almost £8 million at Christie's London in 2002. After the auction, export was delayed while a vain attempt was made to match the bid of Sheikh Saud-al-Thani, cousin of the Emir of Qatar, where the Weddell Venus currently resides. A laser-made Carrara marble copy replaces the original at Newby.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saud_bi ... d_Al_Thani
"
By the turn of the 21st century, Shaikh Sa’ud had established an international reputation as an avid art collector, both for his own collection as well as those of several state-owned museums he oversaw in Qatar.[4]
"
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/qatar ... ion-166020
"
He also had a history of defaulting on payments for his purchases. A timepiece formerly owned by the sheikh, which sold at auction at Sotheby’s Geneva on November 11 for a record-breaking amount, was reportedly turned over to the auction house to help cover his debt.
“I feel very fortunate to have spent a lot of time with [Sheikh Saud] discussing his collection over the last couple of years,” Edward Dolman, the former executive director of the Qatar Museums, said in a post on the Qatar Foundation website. “He was an extraordinarily talented man and had a visceral understanding and appreciation for almost all forms of art. I have very rarely met anyone who combined such passion for works of art with such a deep knowledge of art history and the art market.”
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borghese_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satala_Aphrodite
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de%27_Medici
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquiline_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Callipyge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:So ... ._1860.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazarin_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Felix_(sculpture)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Victorious
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Victrix_(Canova)
https://www.amazon.ca/Victrix-Pauline-B ... B099KSN72G
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https% ... 03a25b65da
https://www.conanobarbaro.com/post/dago ... edestroyer
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/aee5 ... fb~mv2.jpg
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5 ... UX513_.jpg
https://www.amazon.ca/Dionysus-Greek-Wi ... PZYW?gQT=2
https://collections.artsmia.org/art/152 ... man-empire
https://www.theacropolismuseum.gr/en/node/24579
"
The original sculpture is exhibited in the British Museum in London, after it was removed by Thomas Bruce, lord of Elgin, who between 1801 and 1804 when Greece was still under Ottoman rule forcibly detached from the pediment most of the sculptures that he found in their original places.
"
"
His hair is gathered in two plaits that intersect on the nape and wrap around his head.
"
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/246990
https://www.reddit.com/r/dionysus/comme ... thanks_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/co ... to_saints/
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15509a.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votive_offering
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-voto
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry
https://www.reddit.com/r/Hellenism/comm ... _the_gods/
https://theopolisinstitute.com/leithart ... eek-idols/
https://www.biblearchaeology.org/resear ... d-thyatira
https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/greek- ... -practices
https://spectrummagazine.org/culture/wh ... ans-today/
https://hellenicfaith.com/2021/07/31/al ... nsumption/
"
Animal sacrifice is often thought to be one of the essential practices of ancient Hellenic religion. Frequently the practice is given a central role in the religion, acting conceptually, if not in practice, as the premier ritual of ancient Greek religion. However, what if the act of sacrifice has even greater significance to Hellenes? In short, Walter Burkert tells us that “the fundamental structure [of animal sacrifice] is identical and clear: animal sacrifice is ritualized slaughter followed by a meat meal” (Burkert 2006, 57). As such, we can discern that the act of sacrifice played a significant role in Hellenic dietary habits, but what was it exactly? In this essay, I will argue that sacrifice played an integral part in the consumption of meat in the ancient Greek world, with meat being expected to be sacralized through the performance of sacrifice before it was made consumable. I will argue this by giving an overview of what animal sacrifice meant, address the form that it is popularly thought to have assumed, and from there address objections by broadening the understanding of what animal sacrifice could mean in the ancient world. From this, I will conclude what these dietary practices should mean for modern day Hellenes, and how these dietary customs should direct the aspirations of the growing Hellenic community today.
Sacrifice: the method of acquiring meat
The speculation that the Hellenic world was one where, under most normal circumstances, meat was unsuitable to be consumed unless it was within the bounds of a sacrificial context is the topic of Marcel Detienne’s and Jean-Pierre Vernant’s book The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks. Here, we are told that the presence of the divine sanctifies the consumption of meat, but only to the extent that we provide the Gods with sacrifices, where we offer the animal to the divine (Detienne & Vernant 1989, 25). Fundamentally, sacrifice is a gift to the Gods, and is part of a reciprocal relationship between Gods and mortals that is based around the exchange of gifts (Parker 2011, 137). This gift is one where an animal had to be killed and eaten (Parker 2011, 136). It is an act through which something is placed into the possession of a God, and thus sacralized. Even Robert Parker, a scholar on Greek religion who is highly skeptical of the idea of the existence of any “Greek kosher,” admits that there exists a few references to the consumption of unsacrificed things as a type of sacrilegious and barbaric behaviour that is an affront the Gods in various inscriptions and poems (Parker 2011, 131-132).
This practice’s presence is so significant that it came to dominate the culinary concerns of early Christians, who saw the consumption of meat that had been acquired through this Pagan religious butchery as potentially spiritually harmful, as sacrificial meat frequently was sold in the marketplace of their era. This was so concerning to ancient Christians that it is even addressed in the bible within the Christian apostle Paul’s writings. Here, writing from the Hellenic city of Corinth, Paul writes “concerning food offered to idols…” (1 Corinthians 8:1) and informs early first-century Christians that they should “eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience… But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience” (1 Corinthians 10:25). Early Christians’ concerns about their neighbour’s dietary habits allow us a glimpse into the dietary practices of the world that they lived in– one where religious butchery was an integral feature of ancient Hellenic cult practice.
This is a sacrifice, right?
To develop an argument on religious dietary laws concerning meat consumption, we must first try to understand how meat was acquired, which means learning what animal sacrifice was in the ancient Greek world and making sense of what it entailed. The specifics of sacrificing an animal varied widely, given that ancient Hellenic religion had no centralized form and was so localized, and as such, rites and practices varied widely across the Hellenic world. When people think of what typically entailed an animal sacrifice, however, there exists a broad uniformity in how it was performed:
The sacrificial act destination, the altar, is selected, and a suitable animal for sacrifice is found (Petropoulou 2012, 41). The grandest of these could be the ox, especially a bull (Burkert 2006, 55). What could also be sacrificed are sheep, goats, pigs, and poultry (Burkert 2006, 55).
The sacrifice is adorned with a garland and then escorted to the altar (Petropoulou 2012, 41).
The priest overseeing the sacrifice raises their hands skywards in a praying position, prayers are spoken, and lustral rites are performed (Petropoulou 2012, 41).
The sacrifice is slaughtered. If the animal is large, then they receive a blow to the head with an axe to first stun the animal, and then their artery in their neck is cut with a sacrificial knife (Burkert 2006, 56). If the animal is small, they are raised above the altar, and their throat is cut (Burkert 2006, 55). The sacrifice’s blood is collected in a basin and poured onto and around the altar, a sign of great piety that lets people know that the altar is in active use by the city (Burkert 2006, 55).
The sacrifice is skinned and carved up (Petropoulou 2012, 41) (Burkert 2006, 56). Their entrails can be examined (Petropoulou 2012, 41), and splanchna, organs such as the heart and liver, are roasted at the altar fire and eaten by the sacrificers while the bones and inedible fats are consecrated on the pyre (Burkert 2006, 56-57).
This “paradigmatic” bloody act is called a thysia by Detienne and Vernant (Detienne & Vernant 1989, 89), and denotes the spilling of sacrificial blood over the altar and the burning of their bones (Detienne & Vernant 1989, 25). Following this “paradigmatic” bloody act was the banquet, a fundamental feature of these more formal sacrifices. While the Gods received the bones and inedible fat, the edible meat was prepared for consumption by the mortal participants of sacrifice through boiling or roasting (Burkert 2006, 57). This allowed for communion between God and man, where the Gods joined with mortalkind in an act that brought them closer together. As Fred S. Naiden writes, “if there was communication through sacrifice, and thus a discourse or practice, there was also communion, an experience distinct from any such form of expression” (Naiden 2015, 316). Detienne and Vernant try to describe this by pointing back towards Hesiodic narratives of the origin of sacrifice when God and man were first divided with an event that marked the first sacrifice. They write that “by eating the edible pieces[,] men, even as they reinvigorate their failing strength, recognize the inferiority of their mortal condition and confirm their complete submission to the Olympians” (Detienne & Vernant 1989, 25). However, as Robin Osborne points out in his article Sacrificial Theologies, Detienne and Vernant make themselves wholly reliant on the narrative of a single author that was not given universal acknowledgement for their report on the origin of sacrifice in the Hellenic world, and thus it shouldn’t be used to ascribe qualities to the entire practice of sacrifice in the Hellenic world (Eidinow, Kindt, Osborne 2020, 236-237). During the sacrificial banquet, it was forbidden for meat to be removed from the sacred premise (Burkert 2006, 57). However, if the ritual feast ended and there was an abundance of sacrificial meat that remained, we know that it was then sold on the market, probably as a means of avoiding waste (Parker 2011, 158).
More to sacrifice than an altar
However, considering animal sacrifice was supposedly the primary source of food for ancient Greeks, was the described thysia ritual format the only paradigm of animal sacrifice that existed? The very question is invoked by Naiden, who objects to the idea that animal sacrifices as a whole were the entire means through which Greeks obtained their meat, writing that the claim that “all beef, mutton, and pork came from sacrificial animals . . . [is] a view that goes too far”, as according to him few acts of these formal sacrifices at the altar could feed citizen bodies of tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands (Naiden 2015, 34). However, as J. C. B. Lowe points out, most meat of the ancient world likely would have been coming from sacrifice as meat would have been consumed conservatively (Lowe 1985, 73). After all, livestock was as much a currency in the ancient world as it was inventory, and raising livestock for the purpose of sacrifice and consumption would have been a substantial and hefty expenditure. As Parker writes, “there is therefore in sacrificial killing an element of surrender of wealth” (Parker 2011, 137). But more importantly, this brings into question whether there may have been a more considerable diversity of understanding of what counted as a sacrifice in the ancient Greek world. There is a degree to which I agree with Naiden’s assessment that the highly idealized model of sacrifice where blood spilled at the altar was not capable of feeding every single person in a city. It is not only likely, but in a decentralized religion, pretty much a given that sacrifice could come in many shapes and sizes, and it is likely that the model of sacrifice I had detailed above would not even count as the only model of sacrifice in the minds of Greeks. This is probably what is alluded to in the lex sacra, an inscription set up by an Orphic cult, that encourage acolytes to abstain from the paradoxical “unsacrificed sacrifices” (Hellholm & Sänger 2018, 1770).
Stag hunt mosaic from Pella, Greece
Both Lowe and Parker claim that some animals would not be sacrificed because the animals were killed during a hunt, rather than the formal ritual at the altar. Parker especially emphasizes this fact in his push against the idea of all meat needing to derive from sacrifice before consumption, deeming the claim “extreme” and asserting that it can be refuted by pointing out how “Greeks ate game animals killed in no special way” (Parker 2011, 131). But Parker’s points are relatively weak, as he works off the base assumption that the highly ceremonial ritual of blood at the altar was the only paradigm for sacrifice in the ancient Greek world. Both Lowe and Parker forget how important it was for hunters to make vows to the Gods before their hunts, where the Gods are frequently described as playing a substantial role in the preparation for a hunt, as described in Xenophon’s Cynegeticus:
Let the huntsman go out to the hunting ground in a simple light dress and shoes, carrying a cudgel in his hand, and let the net-keeper follow. Let them keep silence while approaching the ground, so that, in case the hare is near, she may not move off on hearing voices. Having tied the hounds separately to the trees so that they can easily be slipped, let him set up the purse-nets and hayes in the manner described. After this let the net-keeper keep guard, and let the huntsman take the hounds and go to the place in the hunting ground where the hare may be lurking; and after registering a vow to Apollo and Artemis the Huntress [gr. Agrotera] to give them a share of the spoil, let him loose one hound, the cleverest at following a track, at sunrise in winter, before dawn in summer, and some time between at other seasons. As soon as the hound picks up a line from the network of tracks that leads straight ahead, let him slip another. If the track goes on, let him set the others going one by one at short intervals, and follow without pressing them, accosting each by name, but not often, that they may not get excited too soon.
Xen. Hunt. 6.11-14
In short, what we see here is that the Gods are still an integral part of the hunter’s trade, and that the hunter’s killing of game is legitimized through the sacrificing of other animals. These accounts continue centuries after Xenophon, and can be found in the works of Arrianos of Nikomedia (sometimes styled as the “younger” or “second” Xenophon). In his own similarly titled Cynegeticus, Arrianos tells us about the critical role the Gods are understood to play in the hunt, and that even the most skilled of hunters who does not make a vow to the Gods may suffer from being unable to find game at all:
Teucer, he [Homer] says, the best bowman of the Greeks, in the arhcery-contest hit the cord only, and cut it asunder, because he had offered no vow to Apollo; but that Merion, who was no archer at all, by having invoked Apollo, struck the bird when on the wing
Arr. Hunt. 32-36
Not only are the Gods given vows by hunters, receiving a share in the game and sacrifices after that in exchange for substantial amounts of game, but we see in Arrianos’ account that to not offer vows to the Gods when hunting was synonymous with finding no success. So in what way is hunting not a potential form of sacrifice in the Greek paradigm? We might extend this to meat acquired from domesticated animals that didn’t go through a typical sacrificial procession. For example, early on in his book Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods, Naiden objects to the fact that all meat came from sacrifice by claiming that the pork that was served in the Spartan messes did not come from sacrificed animals (Naiden 2015, 34), but later admits that “the Spartan messes were not secular. When the butcher [mageiros] killed his pigs, he may have said a prayer over them” (Naiden 2015, 257). But while chastising Detienne and Vernant, Naiden himself writes that they “assume that sacrifice is a ritual, but the worshipper conceived it as an episode in a relation with a god” (Naiden 2015, 320), so why then are mageiroi not placed in a relationship with a sacrificial God when they pray over the animals they kill? In no way does Naiden address the inconsistency, aside asserting the fact that these butchering did not take place at an altar, which is simply how his opponents Detienne and Vernant define animal sacrifice. But then why should we assume that just because an animal was not slaughtered at an altar that it was not sacrificed, especially if the institution of butchery is a one where a butcher proficient in religious slaughter was, like with priests or hunters, invoking the Gods in prayer during the taking of a life? Infact, Lowe’s description of how the mageiros functioned paints a more in-depth picture that Naiden would find difficult to argue against, with the mageiros holding a combination of culinary and ritual functions, their role being that of a professional sacrificer proficient in butchering, cooking and ritual slaughter (Lowe 1985, 73). Thus it can only be discerned further that the consumption of meat held religious significance to the ancient Greeks (Lowe 1985, 72).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is fair to conclude that in Hellenism, one must ideally acquire all of their meat through a type of religious butchery. Sacrifice was how the ancients acquired and consumed flesh. However, it is important to keep in mind what sacrifice means. All of the arguments made by Naiden and Parker opposing animal sacrifice as the fundamental way in which Greeks acquired their meat are formulated as direct responses to Detienne and Vernant’s work. However, rather than challenge Detienne and Vernant’s assertion that animal sacrifice in the ancient Greek world was synonymous with the thysia, which they define as the slaughter of an animal over an altar and the burning of their bones, Naiden and Parker affirmed the narrative by denying that animal sacrifice, which they also held to be synonymous with Detienne and Vernant’s thysia, to be the only means through which Greeks acquired meat. Evidence shows, however, that the gathering of meat from animals was always associated with giving of life to the Gods in one way or another– the fundamental feature that Parker admits as a defining feature of sacrifice to the Gods (Parker 2011, 136).
Given this information, practitioners of Hellenism today should be wary of where their meat comes from. It is important to be cautious of miasma coming from unsacrificed meat, especially from the meat industry. Further, it is essential for communities that can afford it to make efforts towards opening religious butcheries to accommodate for Hellenic dietary practices.
"
https://pandorasjar.org/making-sacred
https://apilgrimsfriend.com/2014/07/11/our-cruel-idols/
"
A lot of folks think that only primitive people groups worship idols. It is an activity born of ignorance and we have graduated from it in our enlightened status. Since we have science, technology, and great learning, we are no longer tempted to bow down gods as represented by little figurines or statues. We are beyond that. We are evolved.
Is that really true? Are we really invulnerable to idolatry just because we have wifi and a materialistic view of life? Have we truly reversed the tide of recorded human behavior and reached a kind of where we are slave to no god(s)? I submit not. Although most of those reading this post don’t worship supernatural deities whose presence is manifested and venerated by little statues, the impulse of idolatry still lives strong within our hearts. By speaking of ancient Greek mythology, Tim Keller does a marvelous job showing that idolatry still thrives in the human heart.
(In ancient Greek religion) There was Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty; Ares, the god of war; Artemis, the goddess of fertility and wealth; Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship.
Our contemporary society is not fundamentally different from these ancient ones. Each culture is dominated by its own set of idols. Each has its own “priesthoods,” its totems and rituals. Each one has its shrines – whether office towers, spas and gyms, studios, or stadiums – where sacrifices must be made in order to procure the blessings of the good life and ward off disaster. What are the gods of beauty, power, money, and achievement but these same things that have assumed mythic proportions in our individual lives and in our society?
We may not physically kneel before the statue of Aphrodite, but many young women today are driven into depression and eating disorders by an obsessive concern over their body images.
We may not actually burn incense to Artemis, but when money and career are raised to cosmic proportions, we perform a kind of child sacrifice, neglecting family and community to achieve a higher place in business and gain more wealth and prestige.
In the ancient times, the deities were bloodthirsty and hard to appease. They still are. (Taken from Counterfeit Gods, p. xiv-xv).
"
https://www.hellenicgods.org/proper-car ... ellenismos
https://www.hellenicgods.org/offerings- ... ellenismos
"
There has been some talk on the internet that one must be very careful of míasma (Gr. μίασμα) when making offerings, that the offerings are sacred and should not be allowed to be contaminated. Following this logic, some people believe that you cannot allow animals to eat the offerings or that you may not place offerings where anything could happen to them to desecrate them. Naturally, we try our best to be respectful of the offerings, but the things that happen in nature are just that: natural. They are not a míasma. As stated at the beginning of this essay, the offerings are not consumed by the Gods: they are symbolic. So we do our best and place the offering in a pleasant area, but we avoid being superstitious and unnaturally obsessive.
"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pL3g3fUoi ... ure=shared
"
Further, some do not think there is anything substantial besides sensible things, but others think there are eternal substances which are more in number and more real; e.g. Plato posited two kinds of substance-the Forms and objects of mathematics-as well as a third kind, viz. the substance of sensible bodies. And Speusippus made still more kinds of substance, beginning with the One, and assuming principles for each kind of substance, one for numbers, another for spatial magnitudes, and then another for the soul; and by going on in this way he multiplies the kinds of substance. And some say Forms and numbers have the same nature, and the other things come after them-lines and planes-until we come to the substance of the material universe and to sensible bodies.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speusippus
"
With this deviation from Plato's doctrine is connected another which takes a wider range. As the ultimate principle, Speusippus would not, with Plato, recognise the Good, but, with others (who doubtless were also Platonists), going back to the older Theologi, maintained that the principles of the universe were to be set down as causes of the good and perfect, but were not the good and perfect itself, which must rather be regarded as the result of generated existence, or development, just as the seeds of plants and animals are not the fully formed plants or animals themselves.[20]
Speusippus [supposes] that supreme beauty and goodness are not present in the beginning, because the beginnings both of plants and of animals are causes, but beauty and completeness are in the effects of these.[21]
"
"
Nevertheless, Speusippus seems to have attributed vital activity to the primordial Unity, as inseparably belonging to it,[25]
"
"
Modern scholars have detected a polemic between Speusippus and Eudoxus of Cnidus concerning the good. Eudoxus also accepts that the Good will be that at which all people aim, but identifies this as pleasure, as opposed to Speusippus' exclusive focus on moral goods. Texts of Aristotle and Aulus Gellius suggest that Speusippus insisted that pleasure was not a good, but that the Good was "in between the opposites of pleasure and pain." It is possible that the dispute between Speusippus and Eudoxus influenced Plato's Philebus (esp. 53c–55a).[28]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudoxus_of_Cnidus
"
Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics,[14] attributes to Eudoxus an argument in favor of hedonism—that is, that pleasure is the ultimate good that activity strives for. According to Aristotle, Eudoxus put forward the following arguments for this position:
All things, rational and irrational, aim at pleasure; things aim at what they believe to be good; a good indication of what the chief good is would be the thing that most things aim at.
Similarly, pleasure's opposite—pain—is universally avoided, which provides additional support for the idea that pleasure is universally considered good.
People don't seek pleasure as a means to something else, but as an end in its own right.
Any other good that you can think of would be better if pleasure were added to it, and it is only by good that good can be increased.
Of all of the things that are good, happiness is peculiar for not being praised, which may show that it is the crowning good.[15]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knidos
"
Knidos was a Hellenic city of high antiquity. According to Herodotus' Histories (I.174), the Cnidians were Lacedaemonian colonists; however, the presence of demiurges there argues for foundation or later influence by other Doric Greeks, possibly Argives. Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca Historica 5.53) claimed that Cnidus was founded by both Lacedaemonians and Argives.[5] Along with Halicarnassus (present day Bodrum, Turkey) and Kos, and the Rhodian cities of Lindos, Kamiros and Ialyssos it formed the Dorian Hexapolis, which held its confederate assemblies on the Triopian headland, and there celebrated games in honour of Apollo, Poseidon and the nymphs.[2] This was also the site of the Temple of Aphrodite, Knidos.
The city was at first governed by an oligarchic senate, composed of sixty members, and presided over by a magistrate; but, though it is proved by inscriptions that the old names continued to a very late period, the constitution underwent a popular transformation. The situation of the city was favourable for commerce, and the Knidians acquired considerable wealth, and were able to colonize the island of Lipara, and founded a city on Corcyra Nigra in the Adriatic. They ultimately submitted to Cyrus, and from the battle of Eurymedon to the latter part of the Peloponnesian War they were subject to Athens.[2] During the Hellenistic age, Knidos boasted a medical school; however, the theory that this school already existed at the beginning of the classical age is an unwarranted extrapolation.[6]
In their expansion into the region, the Romans easily obtained the allegiance of Knidians, and rewarded them for help given against Antiochus III the Great by leaving them the freedom of their city.[2]
Eudoxus, the astronomer, Ctesias, the writer on Persian history, and Sostratus, the builder of the celebrated Pharos at Alexandria, are the most remarkable of the Knidians mentioned in history.[2] Artemidorus, a minor character in the Shakespeare play "Julius Caesar", was also from Knidos.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge_(magistrate)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_ ... te,_Knidos
"
The sanctuary was dedicated to the goddess under her name Aphrodite Euploia or 'Aphrodite of the Fair Voyage', which was her name in her capacity of a sea goddess, an aspect very popular among sailors.[1]
It was a significant sanctuary, famous in the ancient world for hosting the first cult statue of the goddess depicted naked, which was sculptured by Praxiteles in 365 BC. As such, it became a place of pilgrimage, and continued to be so during the Roman Empire. It was a circular Doric temple surrounded with colonnades.[2] Unusually, the temple had doors also at the back, and the statue was not placed in the end of the hall of the temple's cella, but in the middle of the circular temple, making it possible for pilgrims to see the statue from all angles.[3] Around the temple, couches were placed among fragrant bushes, to make it possible for people to make love.[1] The famous temple was the role model for a copy erected at Emperor Hadrian's Villa in Tivoli.
Pausanias wrote:
The Knidians hold Aphrodite in very great honor, and they have sanctuaries of the goddess; the oldest is to her as Doritis (Bountiful ), the next in age as Akraia (Of the Height), while the newest is to the Aphrodite called Knidia by men generally, but Euploia (Fair Voyage) by the Knidians themselves.[4]
If still in use by the 4th-century, it would have been closed during the persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire. The sanctuary was discovered in 1969 by Iris C. Love, who excavated the temple in 1970. At the site, Love found the marble base and fragments of the statue of Aphrodite by Praxiteles.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos
"
The Aphrodite of Knidos (or Cnidus) was an Ancient Greek sculpture of the goddess Aphrodite created by Praxiteles of Athens around the 4th century BC. It was one of the first life-sized representations of the nude female form in Greek history, displaying an alternative idea to male heroic nudity. Praxiteles' Aphrodite was shown nude, reaching for a bath towel while covering her pubis, which, in turn leaves her breasts exposed. Up until this point, Greek sculpture had been dominated by male nude figures. The original Greek sculpture is no longer in existence; however, many Roman copies survive of this influential work of art. Variants of the Venus Pudica (suggesting an action to cover the breasts) are the Venus de' Medici and the Capitoline Venus.
"
"
Because the various copies show different body shapes, poses and accessories, the original can only be described in general terms. It depicted a nude woman, the body twisting in a contrapposto position, with its weight on the right foot. Most copies show Aphrodite covering her pubic area with her right hand, while the left holds drapery which, along with a vase, helps support the figure.[4] In most copies of the sculpture, it is ambiguous whether the Aphrodite is picking up or putting down the drapery.[5] Almost all copies show the head of the sculpture turning to the left.[6] In most copies, the Aphrodite is adorned with some kind of jewellery; on large copies this usually includes an armband on the left arm.[7]
The female nude appeared nearly three centuries after the earliest nude male counterparts in Greek sculpture, the kouros; the female kore figures were clothed. Previously nudity was a heroic uniform assigned only to men. When making the Aphrodite of Knidos, Spivey argues that her iconography can be attributed to Praxiteles creating the statue for the intent of being viewed by male onlookers.[8] Overwhelming evidence from the ancient sources suggests that the Knidian sculpture evoked male responses of sexuality upon viewing the statue.[8] The Aphrodite of Knidos established a canon for the proportions of the female nude.[9][better source needed]
According to Athenaeus and the late-antique rhetorician Choricius of Gaza, Praxiteles used the courtesan Phryne as the model for the Aphrodite, though Clement of Alexandria instead names the model as Cratina.[11] The statue became so widely known and copied that in a humorous anecdote the goddess Aphrodite herself came to Knidos to see it. A lyric epigram of Antipater of Sidon[12] places a hypothetical question on the lips of the goddess herself:
Paris, Adonis, and Anchises saw me naked, Those
are all I know of, but how did Praxiteles contrive it?
A similar epigram is attributed to Plato:
When Cypris saw Cypris at Cnidus, "Alas!" said she; "where did Praxiteles see me naked?"
— Plato, Epigram XVII[13]
According to an epigram from Roman poet Ausonius, Praxiteles never saw what he was not meant to see, but instead sculpted Aphrodite as Ares would have wanted.[14]
The original Aphrodite of Knidos is now lost. It was taken to Constantinople in the fourth century AD,[15] and destroyed, either deliberately[16] or in the fire that destroyed the Palace of Lausos in 476.[17] It is known through its many surviving copies – Kristen Seaman has catalogued 192 surviving ancient copies, making the statue perhaps the most-copied sculpture from antiquity.[18] In his 1933 monograph on the Aphrodite, Christian Blinkenberg argued that the Colonna Venus, in the Vatican's Pio-Clementine Museum, is the most accurate surviving copy; this view is still widely, though not universally, accepted.[19]
"
"
The temple of Aphrodite in Knidos where the statue was displayed is described by two ancient sources, Pliny the Elder in his Natural History and Pseudo-Lucian in his Amores.[20] According to Pliny, the sculpture was housed in a small building, open on all sides – by which he likely meant a monopteros, a colonnade with a roof but no walls.[21] In the description given by Pseudo-Lucian, on the other hand, the building which housed the statue is described as having two doors, and suggests a more confined space than Pliny's description.[22] In excavations at Knidos between 1969 and 1972, Iris Love discovered the remains of a round building which she identified as the temple of Aphrodite. This included a stone inscribed with the letters PRAX, which Love suggested was a statue base for the Knidian Aphrodite.[23]
The statue became a tourist attraction in spite of being a cult image, and a patron of the Knidians. Nicomedes I of Bithynia offered to pay off the enormous debts of the city of Knidos in exchange for the statue, but the Knidians rejected his offer. The statue would have been polychromed,[24] and was so lifelike that it even aroused men sexually, as witnessed by the tradition that a young man broke into the temple at night and attempted to copulate with the statue, leaving a stain on it. An attendant priestess told visitors that upon being discovered, he was so ashamed that he hurled himself over a cliff near the edge of the temple.[25] This story is recorded in the dialogue Erotes (section 15), traditionally attributed to Lucian of Samosata.[26]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonna_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitoline_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barberini_Venus
"
It broke the world auction record for an antiquity after selling for almost £8 million at Christie's London in 2002. After the auction, export was delayed while a vain attempt was made to match the bid of Sheikh Saud-al-Thani, cousin of the Emir of Qatar, where the Weddell Venus currently resides. A laser-made Carrara marble copy replaces the original at Newby.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saud_bi ... d_Al_Thani
"
By the turn of the 21st century, Shaikh Sa’ud had established an international reputation as an avid art collector, both for his own collection as well as those of several state-owned museums he oversaw in Qatar.[4]
"
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/qatar ... ion-166020
"
He also had a history of defaulting on payments for his purchases. A timepiece formerly owned by the sheikh, which sold at auction at Sotheby’s Geneva on November 11 for a record-breaking amount, was reportedly turned over to the auction house to help cover his debt.
“I feel very fortunate to have spent a lot of time with [Sheikh Saud] discussing his collection over the last couple of years,” Edward Dolman, the former executive director of the Qatar Museums, said in a post on the Qatar Foundation website. “He was an extraordinarily talented man and had a visceral understanding and appreciation for almost all forms of art. I have very rarely met anyone who combined such passion for works of art with such a deep knowledge of art history and the art market.”
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borghese_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satala_Aphrodite
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de%27_Medici
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquiline_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Callipyge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:So ... ._1860.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazarin_Venus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Felix_(sculpture)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Victorious
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Victrix_(Canova)
https://www.amazon.ca/Victrix-Pauline-B ... B099KSN72G
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https% ... 03a25b65da
https://www.conanobarbaro.com/post/dago ... edestroyer
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/aee5 ... fb~mv2.jpg
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5 ... UX513_.jpg
https://www.amazon.ca/Dionysus-Greek-Wi ... PZYW?gQT=2
https://collections.artsmia.org/art/152 ... man-empire
https://www.theacropolismuseum.gr/en/node/24579
"
The original sculpture is exhibited in the British Museum in London, after it was removed by Thomas Bruce, lord of Elgin, who between 1801 and 1804 when Greece was still under Ottoman rule forcibly detached from the pediment most of the sculptures that he found in their original places.
"
"
His hair is gathered in two plaits that intersect on the nape and wrap around his head.
"
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/246990
https://www.reddit.com/r/dionysus/comme ... thanks_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/co ... to_saints/
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15509a.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votive_offering
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-voto
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry
https://www.reddit.com/r/Hellenism/comm ... _the_gods/
https://theopolisinstitute.com/leithart ... eek-idols/
https://www.biblearchaeology.org/resear ... d-thyatira
https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/greek- ... -practices
https://spectrummagazine.org/culture/wh ... ans-today/
https://hellenicfaith.com/2021/07/31/al ... nsumption/
"
Animal sacrifice is often thought to be one of the essential practices of ancient Hellenic religion. Frequently the practice is given a central role in the religion, acting conceptually, if not in practice, as the premier ritual of ancient Greek religion. However, what if the act of sacrifice has even greater significance to Hellenes? In short, Walter Burkert tells us that “the fundamental structure [of animal sacrifice] is identical and clear: animal sacrifice is ritualized slaughter followed by a meat meal” (Burkert 2006, 57). As such, we can discern that the act of sacrifice played a significant role in Hellenic dietary habits, but what was it exactly? In this essay, I will argue that sacrifice played an integral part in the consumption of meat in the ancient Greek world, with meat being expected to be sacralized through the performance of sacrifice before it was made consumable. I will argue this by giving an overview of what animal sacrifice meant, address the form that it is popularly thought to have assumed, and from there address objections by broadening the understanding of what animal sacrifice could mean in the ancient world. From this, I will conclude what these dietary practices should mean for modern day Hellenes, and how these dietary customs should direct the aspirations of the growing Hellenic community today.
Sacrifice: the method of acquiring meat
The speculation that the Hellenic world was one where, under most normal circumstances, meat was unsuitable to be consumed unless it was within the bounds of a sacrificial context is the topic of Marcel Detienne’s and Jean-Pierre Vernant’s book The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks. Here, we are told that the presence of the divine sanctifies the consumption of meat, but only to the extent that we provide the Gods with sacrifices, where we offer the animal to the divine (Detienne & Vernant 1989, 25). Fundamentally, sacrifice is a gift to the Gods, and is part of a reciprocal relationship between Gods and mortals that is based around the exchange of gifts (Parker 2011, 137). This gift is one where an animal had to be killed and eaten (Parker 2011, 136). It is an act through which something is placed into the possession of a God, and thus sacralized. Even Robert Parker, a scholar on Greek religion who is highly skeptical of the idea of the existence of any “Greek kosher,” admits that there exists a few references to the consumption of unsacrificed things as a type of sacrilegious and barbaric behaviour that is an affront the Gods in various inscriptions and poems (Parker 2011, 131-132).
This practice’s presence is so significant that it came to dominate the culinary concerns of early Christians, who saw the consumption of meat that had been acquired through this Pagan religious butchery as potentially spiritually harmful, as sacrificial meat frequently was sold in the marketplace of their era. This was so concerning to ancient Christians that it is even addressed in the bible within the Christian apostle Paul’s writings. Here, writing from the Hellenic city of Corinth, Paul writes “concerning food offered to idols…” (1 Corinthians 8:1) and informs early first-century Christians that they should “eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience… But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience” (1 Corinthians 10:25). Early Christians’ concerns about their neighbour’s dietary habits allow us a glimpse into the dietary practices of the world that they lived in– one where religious butchery was an integral feature of ancient Hellenic cult practice.
This is a sacrifice, right?
To develop an argument on religious dietary laws concerning meat consumption, we must first try to understand how meat was acquired, which means learning what animal sacrifice was in the ancient Greek world and making sense of what it entailed. The specifics of sacrificing an animal varied widely, given that ancient Hellenic religion had no centralized form and was so localized, and as such, rites and practices varied widely across the Hellenic world. When people think of what typically entailed an animal sacrifice, however, there exists a broad uniformity in how it was performed:
The sacrificial act destination, the altar, is selected, and a suitable animal for sacrifice is found (Petropoulou 2012, 41). The grandest of these could be the ox, especially a bull (Burkert 2006, 55). What could also be sacrificed are sheep, goats, pigs, and poultry (Burkert 2006, 55).
The sacrifice is adorned with a garland and then escorted to the altar (Petropoulou 2012, 41).
The priest overseeing the sacrifice raises their hands skywards in a praying position, prayers are spoken, and lustral rites are performed (Petropoulou 2012, 41).
The sacrifice is slaughtered. If the animal is large, then they receive a blow to the head with an axe to first stun the animal, and then their artery in their neck is cut with a sacrificial knife (Burkert 2006, 56). If the animal is small, they are raised above the altar, and their throat is cut (Burkert 2006, 55). The sacrifice’s blood is collected in a basin and poured onto and around the altar, a sign of great piety that lets people know that the altar is in active use by the city (Burkert 2006, 55).
The sacrifice is skinned and carved up (Petropoulou 2012, 41) (Burkert 2006, 56). Their entrails can be examined (Petropoulou 2012, 41), and splanchna, organs such as the heart and liver, are roasted at the altar fire and eaten by the sacrificers while the bones and inedible fats are consecrated on the pyre (Burkert 2006, 56-57).
This “paradigmatic” bloody act is called a thysia by Detienne and Vernant (Detienne & Vernant 1989, 89), and denotes the spilling of sacrificial blood over the altar and the burning of their bones (Detienne & Vernant 1989, 25). Following this “paradigmatic” bloody act was the banquet, a fundamental feature of these more formal sacrifices. While the Gods received the bones and inedible fat, the edible meat was prepared for consumption by the mortal participants of sacrifice through boiling or roasting (Burkert 2006, 57). This allowed for communion between God and man, where the Gods joined with mortalkind in an act that brought them closer together. As Fred S. Naiden writes, “if there was communication through sacrifice, and thus a discourse or practice, there was also communion, an experience distinct from any such form of expression” (Naiden 2015, 316). Detienne and Vernant try to describe this by pointing back towards Hesiodic narratives of the origin of sacrifice when God and man were first divided with an event that marked the first sacrifice. They write that “by eating the edible pieces[,] men, even as they reinvigorate their failing strength, recognize the inferiority of their mortal condition and confirm their complete submission to the Olympians” (Detienne & Vernant 1989, 25). However, as Robin Osborne points out in his article Sacrificial Theologies, Detienne and Vernant make themselves wholly reliant on the narrative of a single author that was not given universal acknowledgement for their report on the origin of sacrifice in the Hellenic world, and thus it shouldn’t be used to ascribe qualities to the entire practice of sacrifice in the Hellenic world (Eidinow, Kindt, Osborne 2020, 236-237). During the sacrificial banquet, it was forbidden for meat to be removed from the sacred premise (Burkert 2006, 57). However, if the ritual feast ended and there was an abundance of sacrificial meat that remained, we know that it was then sold on the market, probably as a means of avoiding waste (Parker 2011, 158).
More to sacrifice than an altar
However, considering animal sacrifice was supposedly the primary source of food for ancient Greeks, was the described thysia ritual format the only paradigm of animal sacrifice that existed? The very question is invoked by Naiden, who objects to the idea that animal sacrifices as a whole were the entire means through which Greeks obtained their meat, writing that the claim that “all beef, mutton, and pork came from sacrificial animals . . . [is] a view that goes too far”, as according to him few acts of these formal sacrifices at the altar could feed citizen bodies of tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands (Naiden 2015, 34). However, as J. C. B. Lowe points out, most meat of the ancient world likely would have been coming from sacrifice as meat would have been consumed conservatively (Lowe 1985, 73). After all, livestock was as much a currency in the ancient world as it was inventory, and raising livestock for the purpose of sacrifice and consumption would have been a substantial and hefty expenditure. As Parker writes, “there is therefore in sacrificial killing an element of surrender of wealth” (Parker 2011, 137). But more importantly, this brings into question whether there may have been a more considerable diversity of understanding of what counted as a sacrifice in the ancient Greek world. There is a degree to which I agree with Naiden’s assessment that the highly idealized model of sacrifice where blood spilled at the altar was not capable of feeding every single person in a city. It is not only likely, but in a decentralized religion, pretty much a given that sacrifice could come in many shapes and sizes, and it is likely that the model of sacrifice I had detailed above would not even count as the only model of sacrifice in the minds of Greeks. This is probably what is alluded to in the lex sacra, an inscription set up by an Orphic cult, that encourage acolytes to abstain from the paradoxical “unsacrificed sacrifices” (Hellholm & Sänger 2018, 1770).
Stag hunt mosaic from Pella, Greece
Both Lowe and Parker claim that some animals would not be sacrificed because the animals were killed during a hunt, rather than the formal ritual at the altar. Parker especially emphasizes this fact in his push against the idea of all meat needing to derive from sacrifice before consumption, deeming the claim “extreme” and asserting that it can be refuted by pointing out how “Greeks ate game animals killed in no special way” (Parker 2011, 131). But Parker’s points are relatively weak, as he works off the base assumption that the highly ceremonial ritual of blood at the altar was the only paradigm for sacrifice in the ancient Greek world. Both Lowe and Parker forget how important it was for hunters to make vows to the Gods before their hunts, where the Gods are frequently described as playing a substantial role in the preparation for a hunt, as described in Xenophon’s Cynegeticus:
Let the huntsman go out to the hunting ground in a simple light dress and shoes, carrying a cudgel in his hand, and let the net-keeper follow. Let them keep silence while approaching the ground, so that, in case the hare is near, she may not move off on hearing voices. Having tied the hounds separately to the trees so that they can easily be slipped, let him set up the purse-nets and hayes in the manner described. After this let the net-keeper keep guard, and let the huntsman take the hounds and go to the place in the hunting ground where the hare may be lurking; and after registering a vow to Apollo and Artemis the Huntress [gr. Agrotera] to give them a share of the spoil, let him loose one hound, the cleverest at following a track, at sunrise in winter, before dawn in summer, and some time between at other seasons. As soon as the hound picks up a line from the network of tracks that leads straight ahead, let him slip another. If the track goes on, let him set the others going one by one at short intervals, and follow without pressing them, accosting each by name, but not often, that they may not get excited too soon.
Xen. Hunt. 6.11-14
In short, what we see here is that the Gods are still an integral part of the hunter’s trade, and that the hunter’s killing of game is legitimized through the sacrificing of other animals. These accounts continue centuries after Xenophon, and can be found in the works of Arrianos of Nikomedia (sometimes styled as the “younger” or “second” Xenophon). In his own similarly titled Cynegeticus, Arrianos tells us about the critical role the Gods are understood to play in the hunt, and that even the most skilled of hunters who does not make a vow to the Gods may suffer from being unable to find game at all:
Teucer, he [Homer] says, the best bowman of the Greeks, in the arhcery-contest hit the cord only, and cut it asunder, because he had offered no vow to Apollo; but that Merion, who was no archer at all, by having invoked Apollo, struck the bird when on the wing
Arr. Hunt. 32-36
Not only are the Gods given vows by hunters, receiving a share in the game and sacrifices after that in exchange for substantial amounts of game, but we see in Arrianos’ account that to not offer vows to the Gods when hunting was synonymous with finding no success. So in what way is hunting not a potential form of sacrifice in the Greek paradigm? We might extend this to meat acquired from domesticated animals that didn’t go through a typical sacrificial procession. For example, early on in his book Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods, Naiden objects to the fact that all meat came from sacrifice by claiming that the pork that was served in the Spartan messes did not come from sacrificed animals (Naiden 2015, 34), but later admits that “the Spartan messes were not secular. When the butcher [mageiros] killed his pigs, he may have said a prayer over them” (Naiden 2015, 257). But while chastising Detienne and Vernant, Naiden himself writes that they “assume that sacrifice is a ritual, but the worshipper conceived it as an episode in a relation with a god” (Naiden 2015, 320), so why then are mageiroi not placed in a relationship with a sacrificial God when they pray over the animals they kill? In no way does Naiden address the inconsistency, aside asserting the fact that these butchering did not take place at an altar, which is simply how his opponents Detienne and Vernant define animal sacrifice. But then why should we assume that just because an animal was not slaughtered at an altar that it was not sacrificed, especially if the institution of butchery is a one where a butcher proficient in religious slaughter was, like with priests or hunters, invoking the Gods in prayer during the taking of a life? Infact, Lowe’s description of how the mageiros functioned paints a more in-depth picture that Naiden would find difficult to argue against, with the mageiros holding a combination of culinary and ritual functions, their role being that of a professional sacrificer proficient in butchering, cooking and ritual slaughter (Lowe 1985, 73). Thus it can only be discerned further that the consumption of meat held religious significance to the ancient Greeks (Lowe 1985, 72).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is fair to conclude that in Hellenism, one must ideally acquire all of their meat through a type of religious butchery. Sacrifice was how the ancients acquired and consumed flesh. However, it is important to keep in mind what sacrifice means. All of the arguments made by Naiden and Parker opposing animal sacrifice as the fundamental way in which Greeks acquired their meat are formulated as direct responses to Detienne and Vernant’s work. However, rather than challenge Detienne and Vernant’s assertion that animal sacrifice in the ancient Greek world was synonymous with the thysia, which they define as the slaughter of an animal over an altar and the burning of their bones, Naiden and Parker affirmed the narrative by denying that animal sacrifice, which they also held to be synonymous with Detienne and Vernant’s thysia, to be the only means through which Greeks acquired meat. Evidence shows, however, that the gathering of meat from animals was always associated with giving of life to the Gods in one way or another– the fundamental feature that Parker admits as a defining feature of sacrifice to the Gods (Parker 2011, 136).
Given this information, practitioners of Hellenism today should be wary of where their meat comes from. It is important to be cautious of miasma coming from unsacrificed meat, especially from the meat industry. Further, it is essential for communities that can afford it to make efforts towards opening religious butcheries to accommodate for Hellenic dietary practices.
"
https://pandorasjar.org/making-sacred
https://apilgrimsfriend.com/2014/07/11/our-cruel-idols/
"
A lot of folks think that only primitive people groups worship idols. It is an activity born of ignorance and we have graduated from it in our enlightened status. Since we have science, technology, and great learning, we are no longer tempted to bow down gods as represented by little figurines or statues. We are beyond that. We are evolved.
Is that really true? Are we really invulnerable to idolatry just because we have wifi and a materialistic view of life? Have we truly reversed the tide of recorded human behavior and reached a kind of where we are slave to no god(s)? I submit not. Although most of those reading this post don’t worship supernatural deities whose presence is manifested and venerated by little statues, the impulse of idolatry still lives strong within our hearts. By speaking of ancient Greek mythology, Tim Keller does a marvelous job showing that idolatry still thrives in the human heart.
(In ancient Greek religion) There was Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty; Ares, the god of war; Artemis, the goddess of fertility and wealth; Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship.
Our contemporary society is not fundamentally different from these ancient ones. Each culture is dominated by its own set of idols. Each has its own “priesthoods,” its totems and rituals. Each one has its shrines – whether office towers, spas and gyms, studios, or stadiums – where sacrifices must be made in order to procure the blessings of the good life and ward off disaster. What are the gods of beauty, power, money, and achievement but these same things that have assumed mythic proportions in our individual lives and in our society?
We may not physically kneel before the statue of Aphrodite, but many young women today are driven into depression and eating disorders by an obsessive concern over their body images.
We may not actually burn incense to Artemis, but when money and career are raised to cosmic proportions, we perform a kind of child sacrifice, neglecting family and community to achieve a higher place in business and gain more wealth and prestige.
In the ancient times, the deities were bloodthirsty and hard to appease. They still are. (Taken from Counterfeit Gods, p. xiv-xv).
"
https://www.hellenicgods.org/proper-car ... ellenismos
https://www.hellenicgods.org/offerings- ... ellenismos
"
There has been some talk on the internet that one must be very careful of míasma (Gr. μίασμα) when making offerings, that the offerings are sacred and should not be allowed to be contaminated. Following this logic, some people believe that you cannot allow animals to eat the offerings or that you may not place offerings where anything could happen to them to desecrate them. Naturally, we try our best to be respectful of the offerings, but the things that happen in nature are just that: natural. They are not a míasma. As stated at the beginning of this essay, the offerings are not consumed by the Gods: they are symbolic. So we do our best and place the offering in a pleasant area, but we avoid being superstitious and unnaturally obsessive.
"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pL3g3fUoi ... ure=shared