There is an overriding presumption here that the myth does not exist: Only personal research will convince anyone that it does exist and is widely and powerfully operative.
I am saying the myth exists.
This is categorically false. The overriding *presumption (as you call it) is that it is not it does not exist but that it is not “quite readily available” and that the “literature on the ‘mystical’ tradition it is fairly common knowledge” or that “the literature is extensive”.
[sup]*It’s not a presumption if we are basing it on our real life experience of never having heard of it.[/sup]
No, reading some obscure text will not convince me of it any more than you could - if you would take the time to explain it to me. I’ve already committed to reading the text you’ve suggested IF you will convince me in your own words that it’s worth reading. Make your case here first.
You have purposely (and disingenuously) clipped my question.
It seems he does:
No - The myth IS a myth ( Read: tradition - Knowledge system - transmission - operation ) of an occult anatomy based meditation driven technique of human perfectibility.
If you read David Copperfield backward, I mean not really backward, you know, not reversing the actual letters in the actual words, but just the words? The story is then shown to be the long-sought and feared-to-be-lost myth wherein we learn the secret anatomy of the Loch Ness Monster and among the secrets therein revealed is the resting heart rate of the Loch Ness Monster and the truly mysterious fact that “Nessy” as she is popularly known is in fact a hermaphrodite whose one daughter went to the Middle East about 2,000 years ago and after some surgery by the skilled Doctors of the day, became a woman and chummed around with Jesus - she was known as Mary Magdelene. Either that or she was Jesus’ mother, I forget which, but if you read Great Expectations backward while standing on your head and reciting the last verse of The Cotter’s Saturday Night, the confusion is erased.
Leonardo knew this, which is why he painted the Last Supper the way he did, because if you stand back far enough and squint? You can see that the assembled diners are, in fact, a schematic of the inner organs of the Loch Ness Monster!!!
I don’t need to provide cites, of course, since my belief is unshakeable and my sincerity ought to convince y’all.
Actually, this really makes no sense.
A myth presents the understanding or a perceived truth of a people in story form. It provides a method by which the perceived reality of the world can be understood and transmitted to the next generation. The myth that the American colonists in revolt against the British crown threw away the rulebook of war and decisively defeated the stodgy British who were locked into formulaic tactics reaffirms the American belief that we are independent and resourceful and are not constricted by hidebound traditions (regardless that the reality differs from the story/myth).
A nebulous belief that all human spirituality is based in some sort of (mis)understanding of human biology–a belief that is not even recognized by the overwhelming majority of humanity–is not a myth. There is no story that is handed down from generation to generation reaffirming the belief, only some really strained (and demonstrably incorrect) claims that such a belief actually exists on some Jungian plane across many cultural borders. You might even make a (weak) case that such a belief is actually some sort of Jungian archetype, but it is certainly not a myth.
So the myth is actually a knowledge system for developing human perfectibility using meditative techniques based on occult anatomy. Am I understanding that correctly? And this myth existed before, and formed the basis of, all the world’s religions (to go back to something that you were saying much earlier in the thread, but never did provide any evidence for).
And you can’t explain this myth except by describing it as you did in the post I quoted. All you can do is give us the names of books about it, because everyone has to do their own research to prove to themselves that the myth is true, and then they will not only understand it, but will be convinced that it is the only way to achieve human perfectibility.
Yep, that’s real clear.
So, it depends on what my definition of ‘is’ is, right? Are you serious, the myth is myth? That’s your answer to my question:
The context being your explaining yourself and your theory in your own words to this board.
I notice you pick the one thing out of my entire post that you can give an abbreviated answer to and have ignored the rest. Your desperation is showing maatoric. The emperor’s new clothes are being exposed for the sham they are.
All of the raises are in, you have been called, it’s time to show your cards.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the myth exists. My doubts are that the language and conclusions you refer to are any construct other than your own. These constructs may or may not be loosely based on some obscure writings but the net product of “The Myth” as you present it is entirely original.
I think there may still be some difficulty in understanding your terminology. When you use the word “exists” I get the feeling (based on your previous posts to this thread) that you actually mean “holds providence”. Many things can exist, I or anyone else could make up whatever we wish and it will exist. But if I establish a full mythology that fictitiously links coincidental historical occurrences into a One-Myth dogma, that does not mean it holds any providence over reality or that any of the references I used in it’s creation are false.
A myth I create does exist, but no matter how well the “facts” I use line up or how much intuitive sense it makes, that don’t make it true.
Now, if I did create such an original work and publish it and other scholars confirmed my writing then it might come closer to providence. However these studies and corollaries will be available and directly reflect my stance, not tangentially reflect bits and pieces. The gross volume of works that “directly” reference my myth would need to be huge and commonly available. Your sources are tangential at best and no where near commonly available (a library search shows no copies of “The People Of The Secret” in any public library in this state so I will have to start checking out alternative book stores and reading rooms to try to find it.
So, if you mean “Holds providence” then say it rather than saying “exists” and you will get further.
Given you accept the myth exists, but to you the construct has to be my own, what to you IS the myth?
Wrong: I am under no pressure from anyone here.
OK, but what is it?
Don’t put your lips on that!
Do you disbelieve the myth?
Well, if I understand your question to be “What do I think the myth is?” and I understand what you have posted about it so far I would say that the Myth is a belief that:
[ul]
[li]There is a biological aspect to our spiritual bodies.[/li][li]This biological aspect is located in the third ventricle, between the pineal and pituitary glands.[/li][li]Through discipline, concentration, focus and meditation it is possible to join the energies of these two glands in an act called “The Sacred Marriage”.[/li][li]This Sacred Marriage takes place within the third ventricle.[/li][li]This ventricle and the joined energies from the glands is in essence “The Grail” that legends speak of.[/li][li]In fact it is the joining of the energies of the two glands in the ventricle, the “Quest for the Grail” that provides the basis for all spiritual belief systems current and throuout antiquity.[/li][li]The commonality of various traditions and mythology, from Horus to Jesus and across all belief systems serves to correlate this myth.[/li][li]Mainstream traditions continue to convey this myth whether they recognize it or not; Occultist traditions continue to quest for the sacred marriage.[/li][li]The originators of all belief systems were conveying this myth, whether they knew it or not.[/li][li]Certain artists were representing the myth whether they knew it or not.[/li][li]Despite this, attributes of the myth and the legends of the sacred marriage and mankind’s quest for it are widely known and commonly found.[/li][/ul]
Your recommended reading list is:
“The Occult Anatomy of Man” by Manly Palmer Hall
“Man - The Grand Symbol of the Universe” by Manly Palmer Hall
(note-Hall was a high level mason and writes a lot about symbolagy. Although what I have read has hinted around at maatorc’s myth, none of it uses the same language or presses the same issues of the Sacred Marriage, at least not directly.
“The Temple in Man” by R. A Schwaller de Lubicz
(note – Mr. Schwaller was an alchemist and an Egyptologist, but his writing are widely disregarded in the scientific community. Cite.)
“Orpheus” by G.R.S. Mead
(note – A contemporary of Madam Blavatsky. Philosophy is discussed earlier in this thread and even Blavatsky had issues with this.)
“Ancient Egypt” by Gerald Massey
(note – Poet and amateur Egyptologist, also discussed earlier and also discredited)
“The People of the Secret” by Ernest Scott (Edward Campbell)
(note – Circus reporter)
Did I miss any references? Did I summerize your myth fairly closely?
None of these works uses the language that you use, none of these works expresses the amalgam of ideas that you do and none of these works refer to a Universal Myth or Great Work in the same context as you.
Granted, some of the information you have presented is in some of these works, but nowhere is there a definitive collection. So, as I see it, this myth of yours is your own construction based bits and pieces of previous works.
If I am incorrect please present a citation of a work that encompasses all that you claim the myth to be.
If I am correct, please remit my prize to Old Pink – care of the funny farm, Chalfont.
In the interest of clearing something up. maatorc, or another user with the same name, was a little more clear about the subject at hand on the JREF:
"The knowledge of the means to human perfectibility lies in the content of the one myth. This one myth is common to all the sacred-spiritual-mystery legends: It is global.
Many organizations constitute the global occult network which preserves and transmits the one myth.
In recent centuries, and in the modern era, a vast and multifaceted operation called Rosicrucianism is an example of one organization, among many, who are seen as representing a deeply hidden inner school consisting of those individuals who best represent the operation of the myth."
For those still following this thread scratching their heads you might be interested in the wiki page on Rosicrucianism.
You have above summarized what you think is my myth-construct.
When I asked you :
I was asking, in the light of your seeing my position as a myth-construct,
what to YOU is the ACTUAL myth as distinct from what you see as my construct?
Is there some reason you’re refusing to explain what the myth means to you?
He’s waiting for one of us to explain it to him?
I’m highly suspect of this myth which apparently may be defined by asking in what manner it exists. The existence, continual, is surely not the point - the lack of retroactive existence is the point.
Or, possibly, it has to do with not liking threes.