Anunnaki

Well if you're open minded and genuinely interested, give his "Celtic Druids" a chance, and then read his "Anacalypsis".

(Excerpts from the latter are availible on-line)


John Yarker's "Arcane Schools" is also availible online at www.phoenixmasonry.org...

Albert Churchward's writings complement these well too.

And Gerald Massey(if you're into Khemetian history).


H.P. Blavatsky's writings were inspired by all these(not "plagiarized").

She just happened to have some insight to add, from the teachings of actual Tibetan Lamas.






Regards




[edit on 10-2-2007 by Tamahu]

you just listed about half the famous authors who i wouldn't reccomend to anyone who actually wants to know about real history
I've often said this
there is a difference between the actual truth and the imagined truth
esoteric knowledge like this comes somewhere between the two
its a human way of trying to explain the unexplainable
bit like the bible in that respect
you start off with a concept that is so huge and infinite that you can never fully understand it
lets call this concept God
then you try and write a book to explain it to your followers with a tiny human mind
its bound to be full of errors right ?

but at the end of the day the fact that humans tying to explain things often get things wrong in no way affects the possibility that god exists
so
you're finding your own path Tamahu
looks like you made a good start
peace

I'll agree that conventional discoveries can't be ignored.


But I also think that they can go hand-in-hand with esoteric writings as well.

Conventional archaeologists/historians often dismiss esoteric claims because the former's myopic minds can't understand abstract symbolism; so they take everything literally and then label it "quackery".

Now if a concrete discovery contradicts point-blank, a literal claim of an Occultist, then I'll admit it.

It's like how the Dalai Lama told Carl Sagan that he would deny the Buddhist teaching of Reincarnation(which would cause the whole doctrine to fall apart) if profane science could refute it.

(Not that I'm anywhere near as Conscious as is H.H. the Dalai Lama of course)

Originally posted by Marduk

you start off with a concept that is so huge and infinite that you can never fully understand it
lets call this concept God
then you try and write a book to explain it to your followers with a tiny human mind
its bound to be full of errors right ?

No.


The biggest mistake with the intellectual-animal mistakenly called Man, is that his mind segregates everything; when in reality, the Universe is One and everything in it is interdependent.

He separates Science from Religion, Man from God, etc.

The main difference between us and the Prophets(Real Men), is that the latter have purified themselves of the karmic obscurations that prevent us from seeing directly our own Nature("God" if you will).


So the Religious scriptures of the World(including the Sumerian of course) are Scientific Codes(i.e. Alchemy and Kabbalah) that map the way back to our original Nature.


amirfatir.tripod.com...

(I can't say I fully agree with Amir Fatir's break-down of the Science of the Kundalini; but he's at the least very close)


The Macrocosm and Microcosm, etc. etc. etc.


Thye're not simply puny attempts of the 'rational' mind to explain the unexplainable.

The "Myths" show us how to experience(Gnosis) that which is unexplainable, by way of analogy.


Because the Nature(Neter) of the Divinity cannot be spoken, it must be Lived.



The only real problem with the Bible, is that the various translations have been disfigured by those who don't have the keys to interpret it.

Aside from that, it is full of Initiatic Wisdom.







Regards



[edit on 10-2-2007 by Tamahu]

Originally posted by Marduk
you just listed about half the famous authors who i wouldn't reccomend to anyone who actually wants to know about real history

Well then will you recommend, which are in your opinion, good books on Sumer, and Anthropology in general?

depends
did you want to know
everything about the archaeology
everything about the religions
everything about the esoterism
or did you want to know everything

Originally posted by Tamahu
Thanks again for the info.

I'm not sure how old they really are... but Godfrey Higgins(whom H.P.B. cited), being a Druid and FreeMason himself, is probably the most reliable resource on the subject.

Higgins actually isn't that reliable. It's true he was a scientist, but at that time we didn't have reliable dating methods and they knew little about cultures and hsitories. This accounts for his announcing that the druids originally were Hindus. Genetic studies show that this is not correct, as do cultural studies based on written Roman accounts and linguistic studies that tell what language is derived from what other language.
en.wikipedia.org...

BOOK I - CHAPTER IV

In my Essay on The Celtic Druids, I have shewn, that a great nation called Celtæ, of whom the Druids were the priests, spread themselves almost over the whole earth, and are to be traced in their rude gigantic monuments from India to the extremities of Britain.

It can be clearly shown that most cultures don't derive their religion or philosphy from the British Celts.

The learned Maurice says, "Cuthites, i. e. Celts, built the great temples in India and Britain, and excavated the caves of the former."* And the learned Mathematician, Reuben Burrow, has no hesitation in pronouncing Stonehenge to be a temple of the black, curly-headed Buddha.

An example of the outstandingly bad scholarship of the time, I'm afraid. Temples to the Buddha don't function as astronomical calendars, whereas the Stonehenge and other henges of the area do. No megalithic structures like those found in Britain or other Celtic areas are found in India... and no temples like those of India are found in Britain.

The Tribes of Israel are mostly symbolic anyway.

Not really. In fact, they are lineages (and the Jewish marriage laws and marriage practices are very tightly controlled. The culture is also very insular.

The actual events of their historic lives, are probably not even very close to their Kabbalistic symbolism.

This isn't a real surprise, given the peculiar "fits and starts" throughout history of various branches of Jewish mysticism -- and the many variants that have arisen since the 1960's (many of them since the rise of the Internet.) In its original form, it was not developed as a tool that related or referred to any of the tribes:
en.wikipedia.org...

But do we even have any idea, as to the reasons for why she didn't predict the discovery of Sumer? Why should she?

Besides, it is said that she was not yet a Master when she wrote her books. So she may have not even known about Sumer herself.

Should the Divine Hierarchies just come out and predict everything for us, without us having to do any of the work for ourselves?

Actually, this wouldn't have been predicting. It would simply have been stating what they knew.

There's a good analogy used with mediums who "channel" communications with your long-dead great-great grandmother. The "deceased" will tell you that she's happy and that she's surrounded by light, etc, etc... but the "deceased" can't tell you anything that the medium does NOT know -- such as where the "deceased" lived and what the "deceased's" husband liked to eat and where the "deceased" kept letters that were written to her and what the name of the "deceased"'s favorite pet was or what the family horse's name was. Most people are satisfied with a "fluffy message" and very few stop to ask for details that they don't know but that could be confirmed by calling up dear old Uncle George.

So, if they were truly in touch with something, then their teachings and writings would present things that would later found to be true by other methods. So far their batting record hasn't been very good.

Originally posted by Marduk
depends
did you want to know
everything about the archaeology
everything about the religions
everything about the esoterism
or did you want to know everything

No, mostly on Sumer; and ones on Archeology in general that are in your opinion good books.




Byrd


Godfrey Higgins never said that there were Stonehenge in India.

He was saying that Buddhist Kush-ites had Built Stonehenge in Britain, and had built monuments and Temples in both Britain and India.

The Druids being Nagas, or of the Brotherhood of the Serpent, brought Tantra to the British Isles.


And the Hebrew Religion itself is based on the Science of the Tree of Life.

Kabbalah wasn't built around a "non-Kabbalistic Hebrew Religion"(there's no such thing) later on.


Again, channelling is generally black magic, and H.P.B. spoke against it.

To teach about the yet-to-be-discovered Sumer was not the inent of the Theosophical Society.

No, mostly on Sumer; and ones on Archeology in general that are in your opinion good books.

start off with books written by Sir Leonard Woolley
most of his works are available from Amazon for pennies
he actually was the first to excavate most of the Sumerian sites and he really takes you there
Woolley is sometimes used as a poster boy by people of faith because he once famously telegrammed london shortly after excavations at Ur began to say "WE HAVE FOUND THE FLOOD". He realised later of course that he hadn't and seems to buckle down then and keeps an open mind. He came back from Mesopotamia an atheist

then when you've had your fill of him switch to Edward Chieras "they wrote on clay"
He's a little less religious as he was dying of terminal cancer when he wrote this book and was't worried about getting the church to finance any more of his digs.

if these arent enough for you then after that anything by Samuel Noah Kramer
he concentrates on the culture and the mythology more than the previous two who were both field archaeologists
Sir Leonard Woolley had an assistant in his early days called T.E. Lawrence, you may have heard of him.
in those days Sir Leonard called the shots
Lawrence of course got his turn later


don't under any circumstances bother to read anything by Zechariah Sitchin

Thanks for the recommendations.

I'll probably look into those sometime soon.


So basically L. Woolley gave up Christianity and Religion altogether, because he thought that Judaism/Christianity/Islam were plagiarized from earlier Religions?


Too bad he didn't see that all authentic Religions teach the same truths in a symbolic way(for example: Ziusudra, Utnapishtim, Manu Vaivasvata, Noah, etc.).




This is why I've repeated the following:

All Religions are based on the Monistic-Pantheistic Tree of Life or Kabbalah.

Meaning: One God expressing as various Creative-faculties that are in the Microcosm and Macrocosm.


Monotheism without Pantheism eventually leads to either: Atheism(reactionary materialism).

Or to: "Religious"-fanaticism(mono-idolatry).


And Polytheism without the view of Oneness(Tauhid or Tawhid) leads to: polytheistic-idolatry.


So Monistic-Pantheism, or the Doctrine of Emenations, is the best Doctrine or Science.

So the fact that most Christians misrepresent their Religion, causes other people and Christians themselves to become atheistic, skeptical, and materialistic.




[edit on 15-2-2007 by Tamahu]

because he thought that Judaism/Christianity/Islam were plagiarized from earlier Religions?

He gave it up because he knew that Judaism/Christianity/Islam were plagiarized from an earlier Religion?

I think this had a lot to do with that
www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk...
one of Woolleys earlier books is online here "The Wilderness of Zin (Archaeological Report)"

efts.lib.uchicago.edu...


[edit on 16-2-2007 by Marduk]

Originally posted by Marduk
He gave it up because he knew that Judaism/Christianity/Islam were plagiarized from an earlier Religion?

But they were not necessarily "plagiarized".


Consider this quote:

"And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger.

So when their Messenger comes, the matter is decided between them with justice, and they are not wronged."

- (Qur'an 10:47)

It is all the same Tree of Life and Alchemy teachings expressed and veiled in ways suited for the people, time, and place.

I think this had a lot to do with that
www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk...
one of Woolleys earlier books is online here "The Wilderness of Zin (Archaeological Report)"

efts.lib.uchicago.edu...

Thanks again for the recommendations.

But they were not necessarily "plagiarized".

what do you call it when a new religion is formed that takes all the motifs of the old and then pretends its the only original
borrowed ?

what makes me laugh is that Islam, Christianity and Judaism all claim to be the original
just ask Cinlung

When Christ says: "I AM the Way and the Truth and the Life".

It means: "I AM(Christ, Quetzalcoatl, Ausar, Tehuti, Amitabha, Chenrezi, Yehoshua, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.) the Way and the Truth and the Life."


Nowhere in the Gospels does Christ say that He is limited only to the personality of Jesus.

Originally posted by Marduk

But they were not necessarily "plagiarized".

what do you call it when a new religion is formed that takes all the motifs of the old and then pretends its the only original
borrowed ?

what makes me laugh is that Islam, Christianity and Judaism all claim to be the original
just ask Cinlung

Yes, the last two followed the first one. You can call it borrow or plagiarism.

Nowhere in the Gospels does Christ say that He is limited only to the personality of Jesus.

well thats hardly surprising is it
as there is no Gosepl according to jesus
just Gospels according to people who had never met him claiming they knew what he said
hearsay evidence isn't even allowed in a modern court

besides which
were you expecting him to anticipate this question later on and to answer it in advance
only the real son of a god could do that

Jesus actually claimed to be fully human several times y'know
the Hebrews who originated the religion that he was a member of don't buy that he was the son of god at all
to them he was just a prophet
funny how christianity claims to know more when it didn't exist at the time

Was just reading through this older thread....


Again, Marduk...

...unless one studies Kabbalah, there's no way one could even begin to understand the symbolism and lineages(whether literal or symbolic) of the various Religions.



About the following I just came across...:

Originally posted by Marduk

And Godfrey Higgins was not just a profane day-dreaming "New Age" type.

He was a Druid, an authentic FreeMason, Historian, and Philosopher who had access to ancient records not accessible to vulgar-historians.

err ok
you know which order of druids he belonged to ?

Here:


burghwallis.com...

freemasonry.dept.shef.ac.uk...

freemasonry.dept.shef.ac.uk...

celtopedia.druidcircle.net...

celtopedia.druidcircle.net...

celtopedia.druidcircle.net...

celtopedia.druidcircle.net...








As for Kabbalah, one could study the following:





Mystical Qabalah - Dion Fortune

The Esoteric Course of Alchemical Kabbalah - Samael Aun Weor

The Initiatic Path in the Arcana of Tarot and Kabbalah - Samael Aun Weor

The Kabbalah of the Mayan Mysteries - Samael Aun Weor

Metu Neter: Volumes I and II/MAAT: The 11 Laws of God/Tree of Life Qi Gong - Ra Un Nefer Amen

Anunian Theology and the Philosophy of RA - Sebai Muata Ashby

Sepher Yetzirah: The Book of Formation and the 32 Paths of Wisdom - W. Wynn Westcott

Aesch Mezareph or Purifying Fire a Chymico-kabalistic Treatise Collected from the Kabala Denudata of Knorr Von Rosenroth - W. Wynn Westcott and Knorr Von Rosenroth

Kabbalah Unveiled - MacGregor Mathers

Cabalistic Keys to the Lord's Prayer - Manly P. Hall

THE SACRED MAGIC OF THE QABBALAH The Science of Divine Names - Manly P. Hall

Qabbalah: The Philosophy of Ibn Gebirol & the Zohar (Secret Doctrine Reference Series) - Isaac Myer

OEdipus AEgyptiacus - Athanasius Kircher

Morals and Dogma - Albert Pike

Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Ritual - Eliphas Levi

Book of Splendours - Eliphas Levi

The Mysteries of the Qabalah: Or Occult Agreement of the Two Testaments - Eliphas Levi

The Kabbalistic Prayer, the Book of Formation, And the Magical Ritual of the Sanctum Regnum - Eliphas Levi

Celtic Druids - Godfrey Higgins

Anacalypsis: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions - Godfrey Higgins

THE TREASURY OF KNOWLEDGE- Book One: Myriad Worlds - Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Tayé

ABHIDHARMAKOSABHASYAM - Vasubandhu

ABHIDHARMASAMUCCAYA - Asanga

Isis Unveiled - H.P. Blavatsky

The Secret Doctrine - H.P. Blavatsky

Dionysius the Areopagite: The Mystical Theology and the Celestial Hierarchies - Dionysius the Areopagite




No "New Age" silliness there.

And these writings would help one to understand better the Kingirian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Sabaen/Sabian, etc. Pantheons as well....

Godfrey Higgins was claimed a member of An Uileach Druidh Braithreaches, an ancient Druid order
en.wikipedia.org...
there are currently three main druidic orders

The Ancient Order of Druids was founded in 1781
The Order of Bards, Ovates & Druids founded in 1964
An Uileach Druidh Braithreaches which is truly ancient being founded in 1717

so I don't see how he had access to ancient papers
as far as I know the oldest information written about druids in England is in the histories of Tacitus
it reads something alongthe lines of "we kicked their ass"
en.wikipedia.org...
any information on druids is strictly common era
The Rev. Dr. William Stukeley was a source that Godfrey Higgins referenced in his book,
en.wikipedia.org...
Stukeley is the guy that claimed that stonehenge was built by druids and used by them for human sacrifices
which was quite frankly totally wrong, he was guessing and as it turns out stonehenge predates the arrival of druids in england by over 2000 years
we know more now about druids through modern archaeology than could ever have been known by these crackpot organisations that were founded in the 18th century basically as secret societies and old boys networks
they had no connection with the ancient druid orders at all and so had no records from that period either

Godfrey Higgins book:-

The Celtic Druids was "an attempt to show that the druids were the priests of oriental colonies who emigrated from India, were the introducers of the First or Cadmean System of Letters, and the builders of Stonehenge, Carnac, and other Cyclopean works in Asia and Europe." Higgins prefaced the 1829 second edition stating that he was preparing a review of "all the ancient Mythologies of the world, which, however varied, and corrupted in recent times, were originally one, and that one founded on principles sublime, beautiful, and true

the reality is that the Druids were purely a Celtic phenomena with no connection with India, they didn't build stonehenge or carnac or any other cyclopean works anywhere else.
so really
its all made up nonsense
and you shouldn't read too much into it

Tamahu,

www.sacred-texts.com...

This collection will shed more light on the historical accounts of Druidry (and its interconnectedness with Bardism.)

The preface begins with Julius Caesar's accounts but on the following pages there are the references of Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Cicero, Pliny, Pomponius Mela, Tacitus, Diogenes Laertius, and Ammianus Marcellinus.

JULIUS CÆSAR, B.C. 99-44.

It is necessary that we should, at the outset, bear in mind the following observation made by Cæsar, as to the comparative merits of the Continental and British systems:

"The institution is thought to have originated in Britain, and to have been thence introduced into Gaul; and even now those who wish to become more accurately acquainted with it, generally repair thither, for the sake of learning it."

It is clear from this statement that Druidism, in Cæsar's time, was not considered as pure and as well understood on the Continent as it was in the British isle, its genuine home; an hypothesis, moreover, exactly in accordance with the traditions of the Bards:--"Bardism originated in the Isle of Britain--no other country ever obtained a proper comprehension of Bardism. Three nations corrupted what they had learned of the Bardism of the Isle of Britain, blending with it heterogeneous principles, by which means they lost it: the Irish; the Cymry of Armorica; and the Germans."

According to this view, we must not expect that the two systems should agree in all matters of detail, but only in principle and substance.

Cæsar's description refers solely to the Druidism of Gaul. How he acquired his information, he does not tell us; it might have been in part from personal observation, and in part, if not wholly, from his friend Divitiacus, who was a Druid among the Ædui. It is possible that his narrative in this respect is correct; still his general character for veracity does not bind us to believe implicitly every word that he says.