My views on Zecharia Sitchin

I own 4 of his books so i know in gist what his views are...

Zecharia Sitchin is a fiction writer pretending to be non fiction writer. As interesting as his speculations are, they ignore the hard fact that myth, as he interprets it, is an expression of the mystical awareness man intuits about reality. Anyone whos read Jung, Joseph Campbell, Sir Isaac Fraser, and many others, would know that. So, whats left of Stichins conspiracies? Its just a bunch of speculation, which mimicks the speculation made in all science fiction. Very plausible, and at times very harmonic in its creation by basing itself on some degree of science, yet, if analyzed with the critical eye of ACTUAL science, that is occams razor and rational plausibility, its really not worth investing any faith in. I can say its interesting and maybe there is some truth about ancient aliens, but, i also entertain other ideas aswell, which to me seem equally plausible. So, not important enough for me to endorse. I also think his 'despiritualizing' myth and treating it the way he did created a very unhealthy movement of people who sorely misunderstand the actual nature of myth. I meet these people all the times in arguments whose every view, from politics, to religion, to history are influenced by these views (thus the power in propaganda) generated by Zecharia Sitchins the earth chronicles.

I would recommend that everyone who hasnt read CG Jungs "man and his symbols" or CG Jungs "collected essays" or some CG Jung book that covers this subject, or who hasnt read Joseph Campbells "hero with a thousand faces" "inner reaches of outer space" Sir Isaac Frasers "the golden bough" should really read these books to learn of an alternative view, which raises this one into complete question.

I dont completely deny ancient civilizations. Ive read quite a bit into it and there are many things that are just strange. The pyramids and how they were built (apparently the math didnt exist to create a pyramid with a 45 incline) even the bottom portion of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was an enormous mammoth stone.

There is definitely some mystery here taht cannot be explained the way the mainstream sciences have attempted to. So, ancient civilization? Mystical psychic powers (a plausible idea)?

Aryeh Kaplan, kabbalist and author of 'sefer yetzirah', 'the bahir', 'meditation and kabbalah' and a host of other books, believe that Tzaddiks, that is, righteous men and woman, go from planet to planet seeding life on planets. Each planet has its individual providence carried out by angelic hosts (intelligences) and thus develop their own unique relationship with the divine. Implying than that the kabbalistic starting date of the world, 5571 years ago (the current year of the Hebrew calendar) to the beginnings of civilization, just prior to the creation of the great kingdom now known as 'sumer' , a Man was implanted here on earth with an intelligence and knowledge which hadnt existed in early generations. Man existed, but there was a certain aspecy which was lacking in him. language. Language makes the difference between self consciousness, and instinctual identification (you can read erich nuemans 'history and origin of cosnciousness' for a very interesting view of history in light of psyhchology and myth) with ones environment. Both Jung and Neumann spoke often of man circa 3800 BCE vs. primitive man. Primitives dont have a writing system. They also learned that they didnt actually have any understanding of their myth. To them, it wasnt myth, or an invention, but an identifiction of who they were as beings. There was no "I" or self, but consciousness was disposed outwards, towards physical. They hadnt yet developed that reflective, looking back inwards, which language and a writing system had bequeath to man. It was an objective, as opposed to subjective analysis of reality.

Its funny that civilization did begin circa 3800 BCE with Sumer, and the Hebrew calendar also starts at this date. Is that not amazing? How could the Jews have known, and kept a calendar for this long for us to discover today that theure calendar perfectly coincides with out archeological findings. Civilization, and thus the 'unifying' of man, under a new heirarchy *entirely new appreciation of reality*, thus a new 'world' which genesis describes in Genesis 2, as opposed to Genesis 1, which talks of the creation of the universe, which, from G-ds perspective, is '6 days'. Its also of interest to note that the sumerians understand "me" as, In Sumerian mythology, a me (Sumerian, conventionally pronounced [mɛ]) or ñe [ŋɛ] or parşu (Akkadian, [parsˤu]) is one of the decrees of the gods foundational to those social institutions, religious practices, technologies, behaviors, mores, and human conditions that make civilization, as the Sumerians understood it, possible. They are fundamental to the Sumerian understanding of the relationship between humanity and the gods. Thus 'me' refers clearly to self consciousness, which makes civilization possible, a power the sumerians perceived and deified (as all gods are deified concepts/laws) as the source of all the wisdom that humanity now possessed.

Man didnt recieve a new body, but what lowered into him was a spiritual level of consciousness which wasnt present before. He now knew himself as something 'different' from reality, and therefore the 'fall' from grace, which is the decent into dualistic consciousness. Keep in mind, without a subject/object differentiation, the two are merged, and therefore one is like an animal, in that his consciousness is outward, and not inward focused aswell. This is what the kabbalah and other mysticism talk about. Many psychologists have observed this lack of an 'ego' in primitives, whether in the deep forests of Africa, Indonesia or the Americas. You could say they have a collective' ego which nonetheless irrationally interpret nature without understanding and being able to explain at an abstract level.

So, that was what mans situation was, most likely, in my opinion, circa 3800 BCE with the start of the Sumer civilization. The Torah describes the Garden of Eden as being West of where Adam and Eve were ousted. This the Rabbinic sages say is Jerusalem, at the temple mount. Man was driven eastwards, meant both out of a certain state of consciousness, but more literally, out of the land of Israel, to probably somewhere in the Jordanian plane. Eventually, Cain came around, and he built a city for his son, enoch, which is probably akin to Eridu, which became the beginnings of civilization (as the torah says, the mentality of Cain is responsible for outer 'growth' or the lust for power, which is what a social structure produces, the power of many into one. In its evil manifestation, you get abuse of powers, where the elite enslave the masses, as opposted to represent them in a honorable and dignified manner.

This is my theory of how civilization began. Another question that is unresolved, is, how did man come to recieve this level of consciousness. Someone, somewhere must have enabled primitive man of this earth, to 'recieve' a higher level of consciousness. Was this through interaction with an alien civilization, from a different planet, a humanity which came here to indoctrinate this humanity into a higher dimension of experience of the divine. They came here, educated our founders, which may or many not have been individual people as i suggested earlier, but could have been a conglomerate of people, each of whom collectively stood as a 'patriarch - representative' of the the people he ruled over, and thus each generation symbolzied a different archtypal dynamic in reality. Every Hebrew name being also a hebrew word, which gives meaning to the names of each patriarch. So the education itself was a quantum leap of consciousness from being only outward focused but now inward, in ideas, concepts, or 'gods' as they were called, which gave wisdom and understanding to mankind.

I definitely do see it as plausible that this level of being came from an outside civilization, who came here and indictrinated us, revealed to us through education (just as a primitive can be taken from his outer focused consciousness and learn and thus recieve a higher understanding, faculty of consciousness which had up to that point been dormant. Just as science also says, that humans only use a relatively small proporation of their brain relative to what hes capable of using. so, the simple act of education opened up a 'world' of ideas, which man had now complete contact and connection with. These 'ideas' or primordial powers, archetypes as Jung world call them, transmitted to man more knowledge about the sphere they controlled. Hence, the kabbalistic belief that Adam was educated by the angel Raziel (lit. 'mysteries of G-d'), after G-d banished him from Eden.

Did man grow through interaction with these spiritual powers (but that would beg the question, how did physical, primitive man of Circa 4000 BCE, before the creation of Adam, recieve this higher level of consciousness?. How was it fused to the physical? Its not very plausible, given archeology, that 1 man existed 3800 years ago. There were many more than that. So, how did man change?) or did it happen through interaction with a more highly advanced mankind which enabled primitive man to interact with a higher dimension of reality, thus connecting it on this planet, to the physical.


Anyways, speculation is fun. All the above was just speculation on my part. I dont really know. So im sort of agnostic in this part.

I've read almost all of Sitchin's books, at least twice, I find his analysis exceptional and his conclusions highly accurate. I have independently verified 90% of his conclusions through other sources (only some of which rely of his work - but a lot do). I have done this by crossing subject matter/methodologies. Here is an abbreviated list:

Ancient Astronaut/Civilization researchers: Hancock, Temple
Global Conspiracy Researchers: Marrs, Icke, Cooper, Robert Anton Wilson
Space Science: Hoagland
Archeology: Childress, Kenyon
Remote Viewing: McDonegle and Courtney Brown
Shamens: Frissell, Drunvalo, Mutwa (via Icke)
Channels: Patricia Corey
Technology: Dunn, , Corsco
Alien/UFO Researchers: Moulton-Howe, Randles, Randle, Dolan

The biggest inaccuracy is that he presents the Annunaki as Human looking in his books (Created in image of God). But in an interview, Icke challenged him on this and Sitchin tried to get Icke (unsuccessfully of course) to ignore the shape shifting stuff.

I did find it hard to believe in Nibaru and especially the crazy orbit (how could people live on such a planet), but there are other sources that confirm this material also.

I would be pleased to discuss any of this material in more detail. I do have a fairly extensive paper on all of this that I am looking for someone to review if interested.

I am very sorry to hear of Sitchin's recent passing. He was one of a kind!

Originally posted by fah0436
I've read almost all of Sitchin's books, at least twice, I find his analysis exceptional and his conclusions highly accurate. I have independently verified 90% of his conclusions through other sources (only some of which rely of his work - but a lot do). I have done this by crossing subject matter/methodologies. Here is an abbreviated list:

Ancient Astronaut/Civilization researchers: Hancock, Temple
Global Conspiracy Researchers: Marrs, Icke, Cooper, Robert Anton Wilson
Space Science: Hoagland
Archeology: Childress, Kenyon
Remote Viewing: McDonegle and Courtney Brown
Shamens: Frissell, Drunvalo, Mutwa (via Icke)
Channels: Patricia Corey
Technology: Dunn, , Corsco
Alien/UFO Researchers: Moulton-Howe, Randles, Randle, Dolan

The biggest inaccuracy is that he presents the Annunaki as Human looking in his books (Created in image of God). But in an interview, Icke challenged him on this and Sitchin tried to get Icke (unsuccessfully of course) to ignore the shape shifting stuff.

I did find it hard to believe in Nibaru and especially the crazy orbit (how could people live on such a planet), but there are other sources that confirm this material also.

I would be pleased to discuss any of this material in more detail. I do have a fairly extensive paper on all of this that I am looking for someone to review if interested.

I am very sorry to hear of Sitchin's recent passing. He was one of a kind!

Have you read the books suggested above? Jung, Campbell, Isaac Fraser, Erich Neumann? i would definitely recommend you read them. Prett revolutionary stuff, particularly in their unearthing the mystical/psychological nature of mythology.

Thats what i would do. The authors you listed are too 'conspiratorial' and not really respected by academia. Conversely, Jung, Campbell, are very mainstream, and yet, their views are hardly appreciated by the greater public. People still have a naive, material, understanding of mythology and religion, because mysticism and many of the ideas broached by the above authors didnt really influence anyone other than the academics, who by strategy have kept this sort of knowledge out of the public sphere.

Ive read icke, and Marrs both of whom i dislike for the antisemitism. Marrs is absolutely ridiculous with his lies and if anyone is gonna learn kabbalah or msyticism through him, is being sorely misdirected. Study it from its source, than return to his 'anlysis' of them and you'll see how offensive and distorted his 'research' is. ANd icke in the beginning was fine, up until he argued that the grand 'masters' of this international reptilian conspiracy are the Jewish Cohanism. Again, another absurd, highly offensive and very common for gentiles (given history, the Jews have been slandered in every generation with some accusation, whether that be poisoning the public with the great plague, or kidnapping gentile children to make matzah from their blood, ro some other absurd fantasy) allegation of Jews being responsible for the worlds ills. As a gentile who has studied Judaism with a non biased eye, i can not understand what he finds evil in Judaism. I may not agree with all of its stringencies, but nothing at all in it, and i have studied it quite deeply (I have about 150 books on the subject, from kabbalah, to Rashi, and books on its philosohpy on many different subjects) warrants an allegation as sordid and quite inflammatory as Jews being reptilians. If anyone is reptilian, its the gnostic western elite, who engage in rites and behavior that unites with demonic powers ("reptilians" if they do indeed exist, being the spiritual projection of a demonic archetype, which takes on the form of 'reptilian').

Judaism is angelic, and incredibly optomisitc and positive in its theology and philosophy. There is simply no fair basis to call them reptilians. If anyone is willing to do the research themselves and than compare wha youve learned with Ickes allegations, it will definitely come off as defamatory, and not as a legitimate claim. not to mention Ickes spiritual views which are very gnostic/shamanic and thus naturally antagonistic towards Judaism.

two very good point about Sitchin writings. Again, in light of the knowledge which can be gleaned from comparitive mythology

Peter James, co-author of the controversial book Centuries of Darkness,[29] has criticized Sitchin both for ignoring the world outside of Mesopotamia and more specifically for misunderstanding Babylonian literature:

He uses the Epic of Creation Enuma Elish as the foundation for his cosmogony, identifying the young god Marduk, who overthrows the older regime of gods and creates the Earth, as the unknown "Twelfth Planet". In order to do as he interprets the Babylonian theogony as a factual account of the birth of the other "eleven" planets. The Babylonian names for the planets are established beyond a shadow of a doubt—Ishtar was the deity of Venus, Nergal of Mars, and Marduk of Jupiter—and confirmed by hundreds of astronomical/astrological tables and treatises on clay tablets and papyri from the Hellenistic period. Sitchin merrily ignores all this and assigns unwarranted planetary identities to the gods mentioned in the theogony. For example, Apsu, attested as god of the primeval waters, becomes, of all things, the Sun! Ea, as it suits Sitchin, is sometimes planet Neptune and sometimes a spaceman. And the identity of Ishtar as the planet Venus, a central feature of Mesopotamian religion, is nowhere mentioned in the book—instead Sitchin arbitrarily assigns to Venus another deity from Enuma Elish, and reserves Ishtar for a role as a female astronaut.[30]

William Irwin Thompson comments on what he calls Sitchin's 'literalism':

What Sitchin sees is what he needs for his theory. So figure 15 on page 42 is radiation therapy, and figure 71 on page 136 is a god inside a rocket-shaped chamber. If these are gods, why are they stuck with our cheap B movie technology of rockets, microphones, space-suits, and radiation therapy? If they are gods, then why can't they have some really divine technology such as intradimensional worm-hole travel, antigravity, starlight propulsion, or black hole bounce rematerializations? Sitchin has constructed what appears to be a convincing argument, but when he gets close to single images on ancient tablets, he falls back into the literalism of "Here is an image of the gods in rockets." Suddenly, ancient Sumer is made to look like the movie set for Destination Moon. Erich Von Däniken's potboiler Chariots of the Gods has the same problem. The plain of Nazca in Peru is turned into a World War II landing strip. The gods can cross galactic distances, but by the time they get to Peru, their spaceships are imagined as World War II prop jobs that need an enormous landing strip. This literalization of the imagination doesn't make any sense, but every time it doesn't, you hear Sitchin say "There can be no doubt, but..."[31]

reply to post by dontreally


First off, let me say- Really well written thread. It was a good read.

Thats what i would do. The authors you listed are too 'conspiratorial' and not really respected by academia. Conversely, Jung, Campbell, are very mainstream, and yet, their views are hardly appreciated by the greater public.

So, what exactly is the point of being 'respected by academia' ? This does not make one correct or incorrect. Neither does being 'mainstream'. And as for your last statement quoted, Sitchen is also not appreciated by 'the greater public'.

It's quite funny actually, I have read some of Sitchen's work, I'm on my second book, but I agree with most of what you wrote in your OP. Also, I have not read any of Jung's books, but- I agree with all of the quotes I have heard here and there that are taken from his works. I assume I would be in agreement with him too.

Now, about the 'mainstream' topic... I wouldn't really trust them as far as I can throw them. I mean, look at how we have been mislead regarding the story of creation, and the true nature of God/the Gods. There is just too much missing in mainstream views and anyone who has half a brain is able to recognize that.

Some of Sitchen's writings might be a bit 'off' or more 'story like'- I cannot prove or disprove any of it. But the basis of his work, comes from ancient Sumarian tablets, which the mainstream never bothered to let us in on. That alone is enough for Sitchen to win my respect. What I focus on when reading his works, is just that- the basis of what he is saying. The plain and simple recordings of ancient civilizations that we were kept the dark on, up until he came along.

Originally posted by dontreally

Have you read the books suggested above? Jung, Campbell, Isaac Fraser, Erich Neumann? i would definitely recommend you read them. Prett revolutionary stuff, particularly in their unearthing the mystical/psychological nature of mythology.
Judaism.

Bottom line - no. I have not read the above authors. Not that i object to reading anything, my focus is not on the mystical/psychological nature of mythology. My focus has been who is in control, UFO's/Aliens, the REAL history of earth and especially humans at where humanity is headed, with a strong focus on 2012 and what is expected them.

My wife is more into mysticism and Kabbala stuff.

Peter James, co-author of the controversial book Centuries of Darkness,[29] has criticized Sitchin both for ignoring the world outside of Mesopotamia and more specifically for misunderstanding Babylonian literature:

This is MOST surprising to me. Sitchin devoted a entire book on America archealogy including Maya and Inca ruins and there tie in to his theories. ANd in all his books, although the focus is Sumerian, he will go anywhere to make his points. In 'When Time Began" he observes the both ancient and modern time keeping including Sumerian all matches and mucct have come from the same source.

I do tend to agree with you statement regarding fairly primitive technology for the Annunaki, I would think a civilization that has been around for 10's of thousand of years would have some dazzling technology, But keep in mind that the Aliens, past and present, have needed to high their technology from us, if for no other reason than to keep us from destroying ourselves.

Interesting thread this one. Differing perceptoins promise to make this much more interesting if it stays above the belt.

My two cents...

I have a dear old friend in her 80's who surprised me years ago when I discovered she had almost 30 letters after her name, and had led an amazing life in various disciplines including Archeology, Geology and Paleontology just to mention a few.

She had more surprises in store. Turns out she was involved in the translation of the Sumerian Tablets from the British Museum's "too hard basket"... as it was referred to in earlier times. These were the same ones Sitchin claimed to work on.

Interestingly she told me of the many arguments she had with Sitchin, about what she called his "additions".

Over the next two years she allowed me to read her hand written notes, which included hand copied renditions of illustrations on some tablets. A couple of years back I was starting to get it into electronic format when she phoned to have me send it to Otago University. Since then I haven't had it back.

Like her, I too think that our science has found some of the things spoken about in the Sumerian stories. Her last secret for me was a report she requested from The Museum regarding their findings from reassembly of bones found sealed in pitch inside massive sarcophagai. The find supports the description of the euthenased failed eperiments and how they were dealt with.

By now the academics want to know my old mentor's name. One time I did and the academics crucified her character based on her retirement hobbies of UFO and Paranormal reasearch. Hence I do not give her name out anymore.

So, while I think my mentor's work is similar to Sitchin's perceptions, I do understand the reticence academics have with the information and perception. By the way, I am not an academic. My mentor despised the unmoveable nature academia displayed and so did not seek peer-review.. to her, her own work was enough to form her opinion.

end my rant

reply to post by Tripple_Helix


i really enjoyed sitchins work, but it does appear that he is making up a lot of rubbish

check this site out www.sitchiniswrong.com...

then do what he does, go to the source, use the links he posts and see if sitchins translations are right, which they don't seam to be, infact the annunaki and niburu appear to be complete fallacies going by sitchins ideas

www.sitchiniswrong.com...

any time someone makes a website with the sole intent on debunking(trying to but failing miserably in this case) you have to know there is some truth to it. enough said.

reply to post by fah0436

Ancient Astronaut/Civilization researchers: Hancock, Temple
Global Conspiracy Researchers: Marrs, Icke, Cooper, Robert Anton Wilson
Space Science: Hoagland
Archeology: Childress, Kenyon
Remote Viewing: McDonegle and Courtney Brown
Shamens: Frissell, Drunvalo, Mutwa (via Icke)
Channels: Patricia Corey
Technology: Dunn, , Corsco
Alien/UFO Researchers: Moulton-Howe, Randles, Randle, Dolan

These are hardly good analogies, most copy each others work and do not do their own research, reason that it's all basically the same. Icke is a wacko and Hoagland isn't much better, they are all out to make a buck not to get to the truth. You do mention a couple of serious researchers like Hancock, none of the above are archaeologists or scientists.

I also own and have read all of Sitchins books, also take them with a grain of salt. If you believe there is a Planet X then I have some swamp land I will sell you in the Nevada Desert.

Originally posted by Tripple_Helix
reply to post by dontreally

 

First off, let me say- Really well written thread. It was a good read.

Thats what i would do. The authors you listed are too 'conspiratorial' and not really respected by academia. Conversely, Jung, Campbell, are very mainstream, and yet, their views are hardly appreciated by the greater public.

So, what exactly is the point of being 'respected by academia' ? This does not make one correct or incorrect. Neither does being 'mainstream'. And as for your last statement quoted, Sitchen is also not appreciated by 'the greater public'.

It's quite funny actually, I have read some of Sitchen's work, I'm on my second book, but I agree with most of what you wrote in your OP. Also, I have not read any of Jung's books, but- I agree with all of the quotes I have heard here and there that are taken from his works. I assume I would be in agreement with him too.

Now, about the 'mainstream' topic... I wouldn't really trust them as far as I can throw them. I mean, look at how we have been mislead regarding the story of creation, and the true nature of God/the Gods. There is just too much missing in mainstream views and anyone who has half a brain is able to recognize that.

Some of Sitchen's writings might be a bit 'off' or more 'story like'- I cannot prove or disprove any of it. But the basis of his work, comes from ancient Sumarian tablets, which the mainstream never bothered to let us in on. That alone is enough for Sitchen to win my respect. What I focus on when reading his works, is just that- the basis of what he is saying. The plain and simple recordings of ancient civilizations that we were kept the dark on, up until he came along.

This is why you i recommended reading Jung, Campbell, Neumann, fraser. There are alternative views that completely disprove Sitchins fabrications (thats what they ultimately are).

For instance, his '12th' planet, makes an assertion that there is a 12th planet, called niburu, revolving about our solar sysytem. Why on earth would he make that assumption, if the ancient, philosophical view, present in ALL religious traditions, is that the number 12, is associated with the sidereal, with the 12 'houses' of the heavens. The above 12 houses as explained in mysticism, are 12, psychological archetypes(you can read 'archetypes of the zodiac', a book written by a jungian psychologist, for more information on this) that all human beings inherit upon being born in this dimension. They correspond in turn to the 12 lines of a cube (the cube being the quintessential symbol of physicality). Also, since im on the subject of geometry, the point, line and area, constitute three different 'dimensions'. In an abstract way, innanimate matter corresponds to a point, in that it has one singular flux, which is to just be. A line has two points, this parallels animals, which have ingrained behaviorial traits. An animal sees something and immiediately responds based on its inner archetypal contents. So the dynamic is two, see, and respond. Humans however are a dimension above a line (and a line cannot appreciate an area, only a higher dimension can look below itself. An area cannot see it itself, nor a line or a point, only a higher dimension can look below itself) they are an area. Humans see, than look INWARD, and than respond. There are 3 different aspects here, which parallels the geometric concept of an 'area'. Animals do not contemplate upon recieving stimuli. Its simply a, impetus, and than a response, without a conscious inner analysis which grants humans an extra dimension of reality.

So, sitchin completely ignored the accepted and obviously factual view that 12 corresponds to the zodiac. As the above author showed, he severely manipulated the information of the 12 planet, making certain paralles that didnt even correspond in Sumerian mythology (like ishtar being assigned to another planet, other than venus, whom she corresponds to). Mythology is ALL metaphysical, aswell as psychological. This is so whether in the Torah, Hinduism (Bhagavad Gita) or ancient sumerian mythology.

As for mainstream being bad. I think that in itself is another conspiracy. Theyve convinced people who study fringe authors like icke, Sitchin, Marrs etc, that because their views are rejected by academia, they must be true. This is inane. Study the popular, more respected view in the acedmic world, which in themselves are much more deeper, spiritually speaking, than what any of those above authors speak about, and than you'll be able to make that assessment. As someone who has studied Jung, Freud, Campbell, Fraser and some others, i find Sitchins writings to have been on the whole, a waste of time and money. And i also realized that he must have had an agenda in writing what he did. Perhaps, maybe, he and authors like him, are involved in some disinformation project instigated by the illuminists designed to challenge "mainstream views". There are many mainstream views that are just incorrect. For instance, Jung, Campbell, are mainstream and well respected in Academia. And yet, their findings and research in the realm of the unconscious and mythology have not become mainstream. People dont understand myth as Campbell and Jung attempted to explain them. For some reason, materialistic views still prevail. This has set the backdrop for conspiracy movements which ironically, can be just as unreasonable and 'materialistically' focused, as the mainstream views they rebel against. This has produced, controlled beliefs, about reptilians, Greys, UFOs, underground bases etc, which challenge more reasonable and spiritual views that widen and mature consciousness, as opposed to keeping people stuck in physical, concrete, and in the case of UFO cults, fanatical states of consciousness.

So you have both, the mainstream and conspiracy genres focusing only on the material, physical. the former explains ancient myth as primitive mans attempt to understand reality through their wild imagination. And the latter explains it away as man interacting with ancient astronauts. Both are wrong. Both are 'narrowing' consciousness in that neither are explaining the esoteric, abstract spiritual theology which is the basis of all myth and spirituality. This is why reading Jung can be helpful, because he helps explain complex and unusual ideas like archetypes, numinosity, etc and how this is relevant to myth and the ancient worship of 'gods'.

Both the mainstream and conspiracy sectors manipulate their followers. Is this deliberate? I wouldnt be surprised. The 12th century philoopher maimonides when discussing 'sorcery' in his Sefer ha Mitzvot (book of the commandments) describes sorcery as manipulation of anothers knowledge. Knowledge is a very mallebable thing. Whomever it enters, it exerts its influence on. The ancients built worlds or a "matrix" for their serfs, in order to control them. It formed the boundaries of the world they experienced. It was the ultimate controlled reality. Responses could be predicted based on the reality that had been programmed for them, and so, they had lost all personal autonomy, they became complete and utter servants to their elites who fed them false, and incorrect views on reality, and worse of all, they never really developed their spiritual side because the world they lived in prevented that understanding. The 'knowledge' which has taken lodge in their soul, forbade it. . To add to it, they also engaged in whetting the publics appetite with emotional fancies, which completely distracted them from the real nature of reality by strengthening their connection to the sensate, physical world (and out of the higher worlds), got them absorbed in spiritual powers or 'emotions' that possessed their personality, this in turn promoted egotism, which in turn made them desirous to reject any reality which didnt adhere to the one they knew and wanted to justify (because the ego naturally cant accept being proven wrong. Only the 'self', can motivate one to reject an egotistical response. If one isnt in contact with his self, and thus higher worlds, he'll naturally be tricked by his ego over and over again) This is why 'knowledge is power' as the proverb goes. Ones knowledge forms the person who it enters. One can either grow spiritually, or regress, based on what one "knows". This is why one must be very critical and careful with what information he chooses to believe in. He should always test alternative views to verify whether the former view is worth his investment. Occult mechanics are very very well honed. Never think the elite, who in themselves are mystics, ever do anything without forseeing or predicting a result. Its like chess, but in a much more elaborate way.

Anyways. Myth is very deep. Kabbalah, Judaisms inner dimension, is actually remarkably deep. It is actually quite amazing how scientific spirituality and thus language, really is, when you appreciate that there are different levels to the reality we experience. Sitchin focuses soley on the physical, which in kabbalistic thought is the lowest world. There are 3 other worlds, above this physical, and even between each world there are intermediary worlds that are very different from the physical we experience (for instance, between the world of action, and the world of formation, theres an 'astral' realm, which takes on the imagery of the physical, but is governed by an entirely different set of laws). Action is the physical, "formation" is what we experience as the 'emotional', "creation", is the world of thought, and intelligence (thus entirely abstract) and above that is a very etheric world called the world of emanation, where everything is completely at one with the infinite, and yet appears to some extent as separate from it - an emanation, like light from its source.

All mystical traditions, from buddhism, to native american shamanism, deals in some way with these 4 worlds (though probably not as neatly presented as Kabbalah does).

So, id advise to open up your horizons before you subscribe to Sitchin or rave about his research. Hindsight is 20/20. If i knew than what i know now, i wouldnt have purchased his books (also, annunaki, are the same thing as Bnei Elohim, or Titans, in greek myth. They are primordial archetypes, spiritual powers/intelligences, and not aliens).

There is another mythologist out there by the name of Mircea Eliade from the University of Illinois who wrote Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, he is on the same level with Joesph Campbell but a little less well known. His book is available in paperback at amazon and well worth the read, it is the definitive book on Shamanism and beyond.

Originally posted by Aquarius1
reply to post by fah0436

 

Icke is a wacko and Hoagland isn't much better
I also own and have read all of Sitchins books, also take them with a grain of salt.

I'm quite surprised at the above, especially Hoagland. He has surrounded himself with an incredible team that has not only taken NASA head on, but outwits them regularly. His research is OUTSTANDING!
If it wasn't for him, no one would know about the artifacts on Mars. Or do you dispute them too?

My feeling is that the more mainstream an author is, the less i trust them - especially academics. They need peer approval and have to be seen as 'fitting in'.

Give me revolutionary thinkers like Sitchin, Hoagland and Icke any day who are willing to go where they think the truth lies. And the he** with the consequences!

I can and have done independent research to satisfy myself that the are on the right track - and their work and conclusions are reasonable and they frequently arrive at the same conclusions completely different ways..

reply to post by fah0436


If academia is dead set on suppressing information that goes against the status quo, how did things like quantum mechanics ever become part of the mainstream? Or for some more recent examples, what about the research of Michael Persinger which has shown a specific part of the left temporal lobe that is responsible for producing "religious experiences," or the recent study out of Cornell that has provided a ton of support for the possibility of psi phenomena? It's all well and good to claim that information is being suppressed, but when one actually looks at all of the articles being published, the supposed suppressed information is generally based on faulty research and misrepresented data. Science isn't some secret evil cabal with designs of obscuring the truth from the populace. It is a group of like-minded individuals who are driven by discovering the truth. I know the thing that has motivated me to seek a career in science is the rush one gets from discovering something nobody ever has before.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


The field of science is a lot different than others. Things do tend to need mathematical type proof. So in general i do tend to give scientific academics some credit and leeway.

But i do have VERY extensive direct experience with the U.S. Government, ESPECIALLY the intelligence agencies, and i know how the government swoops in and 'classifies' things it does not want exposed to the mainstream media. And how the government covertly and overtly controls the scientists involved in such research and even more the engineers that try to make new scientific discoveries a physical reality.

Therefore, I would much rather trust an independent researcher than an academic or even worse, a government sponsored academic any day. I will take Hoaglands word over NASA's any day!

If you have different experiences with sensitive scientific research, I would love to hear about them.

reply to post by dontreally


Zecharia Sitchin, gets my love
peace

Originally posted by GameKeeper
www.sitchiniswrong.com...

any time someone makes a website with the sole intent on debunking(trying to but failing miserably in this case) you have to know there is some truth to it. enough said.

I agree. Just a bunch of nitpicks in my view. Does not affect any major conclusions.

If someone can point me to any online criticisms Jung or others have of Sitchin, i would be happy to read that.

Originally posted by fah0436

Originally posted by GameKeeper
www.sitchiniswrong.com...

any time someone makes a website with the sole intent on debunking(trying to but failing miserably in this case) you have to know there is some truth to it. enough said.

I agree. Just a bunch of nitpicks in my view. Does not affect any major conclusions.

If someone can point me to any online criticisms Jung or others have of Sitchin, i would be happy to read that.

Jung died in '61, and campbell in '84.

They were around long before Sitchin came.

What i really dont understand is his complete ignorance (most likely deliberate) of mysticism.

How is it every myth and folk tale has its psycho - spiritual interpretation, and yet ancient myth as understood by sitchin is referring to ancient astronauts. To borrow a phrase from one of those authors i quoted ". This literalization of the imagination doesn't make any sense"

Will he also say Alchemy was talking about ancient astronauts/aliens? Alchemy is the same ancient science cloaked in the language of mideival chemistry. This method of metaphor was not new, but ancient. Every single manifestation of religion, everywhere, employed this same method.

Even our dreams are of the same quality, albeit, normally dealing with personal and indivudalistic complexes rather than a metaphysical theology (often though some people have such dreams, or visions, called by Jung "a great dream".)

So, help me comprehend this. I will not reject the above because Sitchins views are excited and sci-fi. I care about the truth, not satisfying my thirst for star wars and star trek scenarios. Mysticism is most certainly real, and the cosmology hinted at in ancient myth is also real.

So what should someone make of sitchins writings in light of that knowledge? He made no mention of those subjects in his books. And they cannot both be. Either one is right and the other wrong - theres no room for both being right in this particular case.

I guess you would have to read those above authors i suggested without a prejudiced eye. Sometimes people read works theyve been forwarded to in order to disprove them. Try not to hold those views. If you read with an objectivity, you should see what ive discovered and what so many more, particularly mystics, and those apart of 'secret societies' know full well, that myth is a garb for an esoteric philosophy of consciousness/reality.

Originally posted by Aquarius1
There is another mythologist out there by the name of Mircea Eliade from the University of Illinois who wrote Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, he is on the same level with Joesph Campbell but a little less well known. His book is available in paperback at amazon and well worth the read, it is the definitive book on Shamanism and beyond.

sounds interesting. I'll look him up.

reply to post by dontreally


Mircea Eliade (Romanian pronunciation: [ˈmirt​͡ʃe̯a eliˈade]; March 13 [O.S. February 28] 1907 – April 22, 1986) was a Romanian historian of religion, fiction writer, philosopher, and professor at the University of Chicago. He was a leading interpreter of religious experience, who established paradigms in religious studies that persist to this day. His theory that hierophanies form the basis of religion, splitting the human experience of reality into sacred and profane space and time, has proved influential.[1] One of his most influential contributions to religious studies was his theory of Eternal Return, which holds that myths and rituals do not simply commemorate hierophanies, but, at least to the minds of the religious, actually participate in them. In academia, the Eternal Return has become one of the most widely accepted ways of understanding the purpose of myth and ritual.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is some information on Mircea Eliade, sorry I have the University wrong, it was Chicago not Illinois, he has written some amazing books, I only have one but maybe will check out his other writings.