It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Myths True?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
.


I was looking for details illustrating the parallels between Gilgamesh of Sumeria and Fu Hsi of China, and found an intriguing summary of myth, pre-history and history.

Well worth the read. Here's a snippet:



So who cares if the myths are true or not; ...Who has time to think about the collective unconscious when the bill collector is knocking at the door?

Most of us are too busy just trying to put food on the table and a roof over our heads to care about such nonsense. ...Perhaps instead of being taught how to make a living, we should be taught how to live. Why is so much emphasis put on earning money? If earning money is the prime motivation of society, then they who are in the money business have quite an advantage over all the rest of us.

Perhaps what is missing from government is a basic philosophy that grounds and centers the government for a reason to be, and not just to survive or perpetuate life, but an actual goal, and means to obtain such ends, that are worthy of our toil. There is a rhyme and reason, but seldom is it pursued. In fact, it may actually be purposely hidden from view in the name of pence over whence. Overwhelming toil can create the acceptance of the unacceptable.




What a thought.

Lose the dogma, and attendant ignorance.

Open up.

Who is it who loses if we ask the right questions?



.




posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Very interesting.

I think that on the subject of myth vs. truth:

The stories do not have to be taken literally to be important. The meaning is the important thing. It doesn't have to be true to be meaningful.

On the subject of money, I am a Marxist:

There are only two classes, either you own the means of production, or you don't. The middle class is an illusion, created to keep people from fighting the elite. Either you represent capital, or you rent yourself out to someone/something that does. As long as the lower class is busy arguing amongst itself, the real oppressors can go on about their business.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Hmmm.

I think the point of the article is that yes, it all is about the money but it should not be.

There are other things of great value in the world.

Why have they ceased to be important?

On the subject of Karl Marx, at least one line of thinking says he was paid to save the world's ruling class/monarchy by turning the anti-monarchist movement into an anti-burgeois movement.

In any event, Marx was all about the money - and purposefully or not, helped entrench the 'life is all about money' focus into modern thinking.


.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Some myths are true, like the Hobbits of Indonesia, The possiblity of a fake moon landing back in the 1960s, and Tut having curses in his tomb, with his orgens that is. But most myths are about nature and the seasons, and usually the biggest UFO events that happened a long time ago. At least, from what I read. By the way, the fake moon landing is just a possiblity, I'm not sure about that one yet at all.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   


Very interesting. On the subject of myth vs. truth: The stories do not have to be taken literally to be important. The meaning is the important thing. It doesn't have to be true to be meaningful. [Edited by Don W]



After studying this matter of Jesus - myth or real - I have come to the conclusion it is impossible to say if Jesus was real or a heroic figure akin to King Arthur. The reference to Jesus in Josephus Flavius writings are patently bogus. I accept the explanation the references were added afeer the fact, probably in the 4th or 5th century, CE.

The major reason I have come to the conclusion Jesus is not real is found in the two Jewish Revolts. The first in 66 AD, in which the tiny sect of Jewish Christians did not make the Roman news. But the real clincher is found in the Second Jewish Revolt of 132-135 CE, which was led by Simon bar Kokhva. Before he was captured by Romans, he was hailed by the Jewish inhabitants of Judea as “The Messiah.” If there had been a real Jesus, an earlier Messiah, those people would have known about him.



On the subject of money, I am a Marxist: There are only two classes, either you own the means of production, or you don't. The middle class is an illusion, created to keep people from fighting the elite. Either you represent capital, or you rent yourself out to someone that does.

As long as the lower class is busy arguing amongst itself, the real oppressors can go on about their business. [Edited by Don W]



The R&Fs, rich and famous, have added some hot button issues to keep the proletariat fighting among themselves. Abortion. Prayer in school. Bible reading. Posting the Ten Commandments. Under God in the Pldege. Flag burning. The R&Fs care not one twit about any of those except as demagogic tools. The R&Fs always got abortions for their careless daughters which were called D&C’s back in the good old days. Dusting and cleaning. Or, dilation and curettage. This for the R&Fs but denied to the ordinary women.


[edit on 9/30/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I agree, life shouldn't be all about money as there are things that are much more important.

So why aren't the other things being focused on? That is an incredibly complex question. I don't think I can come up with an answer. There are so many reasons why, so many contributing factors. Everything from Calvinists to modern advertising can be blamed.

I am curious about something you said soficrow. According to Marx there are only two classes of people so to my way of thinking, the anti-monarchist movement and the anti-burgeois movement would be one and the same. Why do you separate them? I am genuinely curious for more info. We can start a new thread if you like, I don't want to derail this one.

Edited for clarity


[edit on 9/30/06 by wellwhatnow]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I beg to differ, I do think it is possible some, if very few R&F care what's on the bottom, but are told by people whom tend to be jerks and think their superior for their money, fame, and too much praise, and an enclosed lying enviroment of muchers, other celebrities, business people, agents, lawyers, etc. But are lied to and told constantly that so and so will take care of them, if they don't help. They'll lose famous so-and-so, or this lawyer or anything if they talk help or tell the middle class the truth.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I agree with the concept that the myths themselves aren't important, but rather their meaning. Take Gilgamesh for example, as you said you are studying it. The idea is that life is important because it is short. Carpe Diem, and whatnot. Gilgamesh was a real king who reigned in Uruk around 2700 B.C., but whether or not he actually did the things described in his myth is not really relevant. The POINT being made, however, is important. Life is short. Live each day as if it were your last. It is for THESE reasons that myths still have their value.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   


posted by wellwhatnow

I am curious about something you said soficrow. According to Marx there are only two classes of people so to my way of thinking, the anti-monarchist movement and the anti-bourgeois movement would be one and the same. Why do you separate them? I am genuinely curious for more info. [Edited by Don W]



I submit soficrow's separation was prompted by the context. Superficially I see anti-monarchists and anti-bourgeois as two complimentary parts of the same whole. For those of us who think Marx was essentially correct in his socio-economic analysis, we must face the reality that invoking the name of Karl Marx is much like a light switch, which when the avenge bear hears it, he flips the switch to “off.” That knee-jerk response is the consequence of a century of intense anti-Marx propaganda. Ubiquitous as in the ‘cradle to the grave’ and bolstered by many people who should know better.

I offer post 1977 China as the best confirmation of Marx’s diagnosis as we’ll ever see again in our own lifetimes. I describe it as being “exquisite.” If nothing else, it has written an ignoble ending to the sacrifices invested in the Long March by so many Chinese. Although true egalitarianism never existed in post 1949 China, it was nevertheless the mantra of the ruling class. Perhaps you could say almost everyone in China suffered equally? Some observers say China is on a treadmill and everyday must run faster than yesterday to avoid the lurking economic disaster. Because we have globalized ourselves, consciously or not, their fate will be our fate. The best analogy I have is Chandler Harris’ Tar Baby. We are Brer Rabbit.

Help us, soficrow.


Aside: I like crows. I respect crows. I have regard for crows. Years ago I hunted crows. Sometimes with a .22 rifle, sometimes with a 12 ga shotgun. The lookout crow seemed to know which weapon I carried, as he gave the warning sooner when I had the rifle. DW



[edit on 10/1/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
My comments related directly to the article I posted, and the writer's thesis:




Perhaps instead of being taught how to make a living, we should be taught how to live.




I tend to agree with the thesis presented. Particularly in this context, I see communism and Marx's work as supporting capitalism and the concept of a "ruling class," rather than fighting it.

So I would say communism and capitalism are just flip sides of the same coin.

And human society needs a new "coin."


Does that help?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Lately, I've been looking at Gilgamesh (Sumeria) and Fu Hsi (China) - both subjects of pre-historic myths and legends.

Gilgamesh and Fu Hsi: Similarities

1. Both were human-God hybrids according to the myths, and kings in their time.

2. Both ruled after a mythical flood.

3. Both were responsible for re-building human civilization.



Gilgamesh was 'designed' by Aruru: Two-thirds of him is god, one-third of him is human. The Great Goddess [Aruru] designed(?) the model for his body.

***

Both Fuxi (Fu Hsi), and also Nüwa, are the god and goddess husband and wife credited with being the ancestors of humankind after a devastating flood. ...
A stone tablet, dated 160 CE shows Fu Xi with Nüwa, who was both his wife and his sister.

***


Gilgamesh is awesome to perfection. It was he who opened the mountain passes, who dug wells on the flank of the mountain.
It was he who crossed the ocean, the vast seas, to the rising sun, who explored the world regions, seeking life. It was he who reached by his own sheer strength Utanapishtim, the Faraway, who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed! ... for teeming mankind.

***

...Fu Hsi was not a man but a god coupled with the Universal Muse, the Goddess of Creation, Nu Kua (Nuwa). Chinese traditions, according to Walter, date tales about Nu Kua back to at least 2500 BCE. The "gua" of the bagua are part of her name, "kua."

***

Details of the Nuwa flood stories clearly share commonalities with other Global Deluge traditions, and are worthy of note:

* global flood or calamity (Gong Gongs destrucion)
* destruction of humanity and animals (explicitly described)
* select pair survives calamity (Fuxi & Nuwa in most Chinese versions)
* select pair survives in a boat or gourd (Zhuang version)
* similarity of names (Nuwa, Noah, Nu, Manu, Oannes, etc.)
* rebuilding humanity after devastation(explicitly described)
* colorful heavenly object (5 colored pillar)




Gilgamesh and Fu Hsi: Differences

Gilgamesh ruled hard over his subjects, pushed them to produce and serve an 'industrial-economic' system, and left behind a lapis lazuli tablet celebrating himself and his life.

Fu Hsi shared knowledge that made his subjects economically and spiritually independent, and left behind the I Ching, the repository of his knowledge and wisdom, for human posterity.


Because of this thread, a line in this poem jumped out at me.



It is the oldest book on earth
and still enjoys astounding popularity today.
It is actually a 3000 year old digital computer.
Confucious the Chinese Sage used it.
It was the worlds first Psychic Hot Line.
One researcher believes that it predicts the end of civilization, in the year 2012.
It was the worlds first communist doctrine.
I believe that the Yin, Yang concept was developed from it.
I believe it works because it contains posthypnotic suggestions.
It's 64 ancient symbols are written in modern day computer language.
Many believe that this ancient oracle is actually a bridge to the spirit world.
The I Ching code may be a link to our extraterrestrial ancestors
The I Ching concept was 4000 years old when it was first printed, 3000 years ago





I like the poem and much of what it says - but emphatically disagree that it was the "worlds first communist doctrine."

Fu Hsi taught his people skills that made them independent of a larger economic system. Anarchy or libertarianism maybe, but not communism.

???



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   


Both were responsible for re-building human civilization.

Gilgamesh was not responsible for rebuilding human civilisation by any stretch of the imagination
sorry

and Gilgamesh parentage is well known
both his parents were fully human
one was a king and the other a divinely recognised priestess who later bestowed her husband as a living god
which is how you get two thirds out of two parents



[edit on 3-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Marduk, I am speaking here about what the myths say. For example:



Gilgamesh is awesome to perfection. It was he who opened the mountain passes, who dug wells on the flank of the mountain. It was he who crossed the ocean, the vast seas, to the rising sun, who explored the world regions, seeking life. It was he who reached by his own sheer strength Utanapishtim, the Faraway, who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed! ... for teeming mankind.

***

Details of the Nuwa flood stories clearly share commonalities with other Global Deluge traditions, and are worthy of note:

* global flood or calamity (Gong Gongs destrucion)
* destruction of humanity and animals (explicitly described)
* select pair survives calamity (Fuxi & Nuwa in most Chinese versions)
* select pair survives in a boat or gourd (Zhuang version)
* similarity of names (Nuwa, Noah, Nu, Manu, Oannes, etc.)
* rebuilding humanity after devastation(explicitly described)
* colorful heavenly object (5 colored pillar)




So not sure if I understand your point.




And - in response to your edit - Sources differ. There is no way to determine which most accurately represent the original work. ...Although I did link the earliest known version of the Gilgamesh epic above.


.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
His point was that Gilgamesh was not responsible for re-building human civilization. If you follow the myth you've been quoting, Utnapishtim, his wife, and the vaguely named others in the ship with them were the only ones to survive the flood. It was they who rebuilt human civilization, not Gilgamesh, who lived centuries after the flood was supposed to have happened. I wont derail this thread by going into the flood myths of the world and the Noah derivation. The "Great Global Flood" was likely limited to the Mesopotamian plains alone.
Now, if you mean that he rebuilt civilization by forcing his people to construct large and encompassing structures such as temples and long stretching walls, then on that note you would be right,...to a certain extent. We know very little about the King Gilgamesh that actually lived. If you go off of the Epic, you can only conclude that these structures he built were limited to Uruk, or biblical Erech. This is hardly "human civilization".
I believe this was Marduk's point.
Your quote:

who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed!


Read this again in context. It is saying that Gilgamesh found Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim, who restored the sanctuaries....etc. It does not state that Gilgamesh restored anything. And regardless which source for the Epic you use, you will never find one claiming that Gilgamesh rebuilt human civilization.

Hope that helps to clear things up for you!



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
His point was that Gilgamesh was not responsible for re-building human civilization. If you follow the myth you've been quoting, Utnapishtim, his wife, and the vaguely named others in the ship with them were the only ones to survive the flood. It was they who rebuilt human civilization, not Gilgamesh, who lived centuries after the flood was supposed to have happened.

Now, if you mean that he rebuilt civilization by forcing his people to construct large and encompassing structures such as temples and long stretching walls, then on that note you would be right,...to a certain extent.

...you can only conclude that these structures he built were limited to Uruk, or biblical Erech. This is hardly "human civilization".
Your quote:

who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed!


Read this again in context. It is saying that Gilgamesh found Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim, who restored the sanctuaries....etc. It does not state that Gilgamesh restored anything. And regardless which source for the Epic you use, you will never find one claiming that Gilgamesh rebuilt human civilization.

Hope that helps to clear things up for you!



1. I am NOT claiming that Gilgamesh rebuilt human civilization. I am saying that his own record makes the claim.

Agreed, and obviously, Uruk is not the whole of civilization.

I'm just saying Gilgamesh spun it that way.



2. My reading of the quote, in its entirety, is different than yours, although yours does play well.





Gilgamesh is awesome to perfection.
It was he who opened the mountain passes,
who dug wells on the flank of the mountain.
It was he who crossed the ocean, the vast seas, to the rising sun,
who explored the world regions, seeking life.
It was he who reached by his own sheer strength
Utanapishtim, the Faraway,
who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed!
... for teeming mankind.




In my reading - Gilgamesh gives Utanapishtim/Noah credit for saving humanity/ repopulating the earth, but he (Gilgamesh) takes credit for himself for "opening the mountain passes," digging "wells on the flank of the mountain," exploring "the world regions, seeking life," and (thus) for restoring civilization.


.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   


It was he who reached by his own sheer strength Utanapishtim, the Faraway, who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed!

youre reading it as a full stop when in fact it is a comma after the epithet "the faraway"
and in fact if you are aware of all the other texts that mention this story Utanapsihtim isn't actually credited with this anywhere else
but then it is the akkadian version of a sumerian tale
maybe you should read the source before you start making claims for a fictional character who didn't actually exist

just a suggestion


[edit on 3-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

but then it is the akkadian version of a sumerian tale
maybe you should read the source before you start making claims for a fictional character who didn't actually exist

just a suggestion



Hmmm.

So you're saying myths are fictional, therefore not true.

Fine.




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
well strictly speaking this story written on an actual tablet isn't a myth its just a story and its elements change in the retelling like any story dependant on the culture thats telling it.
this version can't be the original because its Akkadian and the Akkadian empire was never devastated by a flood and didn't have any kings called Gilgamesh
and the character of Utanapsihtim is also known as Ziusudra, Atrahasis, and Noah
so it can't very well be true when you don't even know what his actual name was can it
the myth of the flood part of this story is told in the past tense and happened many millenia before the time that the story is set in
so its telling a myth in a story that is fictional so the chances of the scribe who first came up with this story writing just the facts are very small indeed

in fact i would go as far as to say that the following elements of the flood story are true
1) Man
2) Boat
3) Lots of water
4) description of the noise that preceeded the flood
but thats about it


[edit on 3-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
My thoughts:
Myths, as with some legends and oral traditions, can be viewed as sacred stories that convey deep-seated truths, thus, they are not entirely lies or half-truths, but are utilized to help explain the basis of beliefs and aspects of past history.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Myths, as with some legends and oral traditions, can be viewed as sacred stories that convey deep-seated truths,




Aaahhh.

Which leads to a most interesting question:

"What is truth?"






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join