True: The legend writers of such as the New Testament and the Grail were very knowledgeable of the myth.
I’ve tried Googling “occult anatomy” and all I get is listings of books with that phrase in their titles and a few websites that talk about stuff like chakras, mystic studies, and other new age* nonsense. Adding Leonardo to the search cuts down the hits to a few that make references to how “occult anatomy” symbolism appears in some of his works, but none of them claim that he was part of some mythical group of Masters.
*rhymes with sewage, to quote Penn & Teller
-
No – what does “There is a group of people who have perfected a mental body and can function consciously while out of their physical vehicle” mean? (Your spelling corrected.) What group of people? What does “mental body” mean? What does “physical vehicle” mean?
-
I don’t think you know what the word “evidence” means.
In any case, we don’t seem to be getting any closer to the matter of What the Fuck You’re Talking About. Waste of time.
So there we have it. The secret to life, the universe and everything is yogic flyers into ventricle porn.
I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.
Yeah, unfalsifiability doesn’t play well around these parts partner. When y’all come back please bring citations and clear references.
Well there’s your problem, Dan Brown takes a few interesting real world facts and incorporates them into works of fiction. Robert Langdon is no more likely to exist than The Sirens that Homer wrote about. While Arthur may or may not have been a real person and some historical but otherwise mundane events may or may not have existed, the Arthurian legends are more works of prose and fiction in the same vein as Brown and Homer. Leonardo painted some original pictures and painted some commissioned works based on tradition. That his images resemble others does not mean he has some mystical insight, just that he was paid to paint something on a wall that looked like what the benefactor wanted it to look like.
Bear in mind I am talking about the existence of the myth and not its truth or falsity.
A careful reading of the ‘Comte de Gabalis’ commentaries fully explains most of the terms of the myth.
I have no interest whatever in whether one accepts or rejects the teachings of the myth as distinct from its existence.
There is a set of teachings and an agenda of human perfectibility behind the world religious and spiritual legends such as The New Testament and the Grail.
For want of a better term it is said there is an ‘Inner School’ behind everything connected with the myth, no matter the culture, race, or religion.
This can only be said by those whose utter lack of knowledge of human systems is immediately evident to everyone they meet, although invisible to themselves.
If you prefer this usage to myth, no problem.
It is well discussed in “Orpheus”, chapters 1 and 2, by G.R.S.Mead.
Why, then, do you think -
In performing his miracles with a word,
in being the word incarnated or made truth in person,
in wielding a magical power over the elements,
in casting out devils,
in causing the spirits of evil to enter the swine,
in healing the woman with the issue of blood,
in giving sight to the blind,
in transforming and transfiguring himself,
in suddenly concealing himself,
in walking upon the sea,
in his personal conflict and battles with Satan,
in raising the dead to life out of the earth,
in resuscitating himself on the third day;
in all these and other things
JESUS in the New Testament is ACCREDITED with DOING **EXACTLY **what was ATTRIBUTED to
HORUS in the Ritual and in the Egyptian mysteries?
If you can answer those questions, why can’t you just spell out your whole damn theory? Do you have any idea how opaque this stuff is? None of us know what any of your occult language means and we have only the vaguest notion what you’re trying to claim. Telling me that the third ventricle is the location of the “sacred marriage” means as much to me as saying that the frumming lumpington is the location of the horschacle plotz. I’ve linked to pages that seemed to me to be about the same subject as you’re discussing and that were at least somewhat understandable to me, but you dismissed them without comment. Have you been to school? Did you ever have to write an essay summarizing a topic? Why can’t you do it here?
And again, why did you start this thread? What do you want from this?
1…I do not have a theory. My comments are an observation on the fact that major legends such as the New Testament and the Grail are mostly treated by authors as if they are actual history.
2…I recently viewed a TV documentary on the grail and writers such as Dan Brown, Henry Lincoln, Richard Leigh, and others, who clearly see the legends as history.
When on the www I hit on this site, which I bookmarked on the page showing Cecil replying to a question on the Grail. When returning here from the bookmark I erroneously took that page to be this site home page, hence the earlier questions from Czarcasm.
The opening page closely duplicated an email to Cecil, who I later realized is probably very busy, so I wrote essentially what I emailed to Cecil.
The OP is just my take on the Grail question.
Generally it is impossible to write a brief synopsis of the myth-tradition-occult anatomy/embryology, so bear with me when I refer you to what may be the best available general summary and ask you not to prejudge the book if you do not happen to like the author-publisher-organization as that approach can be very misleading, in which connection I refer you to “Relativity Revisited” by Leon Brillouin by way of showing how a great thinker can be simultaneously right and wrong.
The book is “Man - The Grand Symbol Of The Universe” by Manly Palmer Hall.
There is not particularly anything I ‘want’ from coming here.
Sure there is. Someone as versed as yourself in the teachings and traditions of the subjects you quote must surely understand that there are no accidents. Perhaps you want to share these ideas with others in a proselytizing manner or perhaps mearly wittnessing. It could be that you yourself have come to see the division between the fantasys and realities of past legends and choose to come here to debate them simply to strengthen your position. It might be that you found some wisdom in the words of The Master, even as they may contradict your sources and have come seeking enlightenment in this wisdom.
In any case, there is no random (and if there is, then this is not it) and there is something you want from this discourse.
You have stumbled into a realm filled with cynics, theologians, philosophers, scientific researchers and those who relish debate and other mental masturbatory excercises based on the writings of an obscure newspaper columnist, master researcher and supreme librarian. Come on in and spout what you wish but be prepaired to have every period in your debate questioned until you have either perfected your arguements or had them dessicated. But, in the interest of fighting ignorance, don’t make the mistake of believing or expecting us to believe that you have come bearing contraversy and conflict in theory and fact, are defending this conflict and are seeking absolutely nothing.
You want answers, we’ll either help you find them or smart ass you to death. I give equal odds both ways.
Don’t sell us short-we are quite capable of doing both at the same time, thank you very much.
Hell, I gave him equal odds. Personally I would lean a little more toward the latter but I’m sure we can do both equally.
maatorc said:
You appear to be talking about the concept of mind-body duality, the belief in the existence of a soul, the spiritual nature of humanity as separate from the physical nature.
You are saying that all mythologies and religions are connected by an underlying mythology or story, as exhibited by the fact that they all rely on the same assumption or belief, of a spiritual self.
Then you make reference to “occult anatomy” which is not explained, and “sacred marriage” which again is not explained.
Does occult anatomy mean a supposed “body” of the spiritual self that is separate from the physical body? What is a “sacred marriage”, and why is it represented by the pineal gland? Marriage of what? Sacred how?
There is a widespread belief in a concept of a soul. There is apparently a smaller group that belief that all mythologies are representations or manifestations of an underlying principle, and are thus all connected. I think we can all agree that those people exist. That is not at issue. The issue is trying to understand what the belief structure says. What is this thing that you say these people believe? We have not heard of it before, and you are doing a lousy job of explaining.
We are not reading the ‘Comte de Gabalis’ commentaries. We are participating in an online conversation. Most of us have not read and do not have time/inclination to read such an extensive book merely to be able to discuss the concept. Please take the time to explain the terms so that we can have a coherent conversation.
You are correct that there are a lot of people who believe the events of the New Testament are actual history. You are also correct that a number of authors treat the Grail mythology (whatever muddled form they want) as actual history in order to tell a story. Does that mean these authors believe the Grail mythology is real? Are they aware of the origin as explained by cecil?
You claim that you don’t care if we belief in the truth or falseness of the “occult anatomy” concept. But you clearly state as fact three things.
In this statement, you are saying that there is widespread and readily available literature that explain that the “Grail” represents one thing. That is debatable, since most of the people here are totally unfamiliar with the concept. But the unabiguous truth claim is the last sentence that remains unintelligible by the use of context-specific terminology that no one here but you knows.
Again, a truth claim by you, but again it is unevaluable by us because the phrasing is unique and you do not clarify your meaning. “A myth of human perfectibility” - what does this mean?
The third truth claim is that Leonardo’s “The Last Supper” depicts some esoteric concept. What esoteric concept is again unclear. The implication is that Leonardo was intending this meaning. Without understanding what concept you mean, we are unable to evaluate the claim.
We can not agree with you if we do not understand what you mean by this “myth of occult anatomy”. Do you mean the concept of a non-physical identity, a soul that transcends death and can function through astral projection?
If you are not willing to explain yourself, then what is the point of this thread?
Well, it’s good to see that at least one of you is reading it properly! Le Comte de Gabalis was almost certainly written as a spoof. Even people in the seventeenth century found convoluted mystical prose funny.
Why is it that when searchers after the esoteric look for hidden meanings, the ones they never spot are the jokes?
Here are your actual words:
You did not limit yourself to Jesus and Horus. (Never mind that many of the myths in the Old and New Testaments were copied from older mythic narratives. There is no coincidence or underlying hidden meaning when one tradition simply adopts and adapts another.)
Your claims completely fall apart when you try to extend a known continuity to other independent traditions throughout time and space.
Nobody doubts that the western tradition is the western tradition. Scholars have long known that the cultures were interlinked.
Dragging in fiction writers and cult cranks, people who have nothing more than good imaginations and the overriding human ability of creating patterns from series of random dots, does not add to what scholars have already established.
By coincidence, I have been reading Mathematical Cranks by Underwood Dudley. Although he limits his study to those who try to put their own meanings on mathematics it is instantly clear how incredibly well your writing matches theirs. One sees the same insistence on rightness, the same blind pattern-making, the same refusal to impart all needed background, the same dismissal of conventional authority, the same abbreviated and dogmatic fragments masquerading as argument, the same recursive prose that simply iterates one point over and over no matter what the question asked.
Dudley also quotes correspondence between him and other professors of mathematics and the cranks themselves, which also eerily parallels your dodging of fact and citation.
It is an instructive read for everyone who wants to look at the psychology of crankdom. It’s perfectly readable without any knowledge of math, since those parts can be omitted to concentrate on the background writing. I took my copy out from the library so it is still generally available although written in the 1990s.
No crank ever acknowledges the similarity between them and all other cranks, so I can’t imagine what you would make of the book. As a study of the species, however, I recommend it to others.
Kindly stop insulting everyone whose religion differs from yours by explaining to them what they “really” believe. It is presumptuous and rude. It is also counter to fact.
The fact that all religions are derivatives of the myth does not mean their adherents know anything of the myth.
Their beliefs based on the religious legends are not to be confused with the true traditional source.
There is no problem with peoples beliefs as they ultimately rest on the myth and correspond exactly with what is right for them at the time.