I'm starting up this item to be a catch-all for discussions of Comparative
Mythology, Gods, Myths, etc.  
Fox

31 responses total.

In response to an comment in item 9 about the nature of the Germanic story
of Ragnarok that offered the idea that it might be a later Christian 
perversion of Germanic myth:

The tale of Ragnarok is actually the Norse version of one of the classic
Indo-European myth cycles.  These are the echoes of a much more ancient 
culture that gave rise to all of the Indo-European people (Celts, Balts,
Slavs, Norse, Iranians, Arryans [as in India], Greeks, Romans, etc.).  This
tale is common to all of these cultures and therefore must date back to a
time before they were divided into distinct cultures.  That places this tales'
age at somewhere over 5,000 years!  

In the Vedic Hindu myths from India the tale takes the form of the battle of
Kuruksetra.  The same themes were carried into the modern Hindu Mahabharata
which still retains it's resemblence to Ragnarok in it's protagonists, plot,
and final outcome.  (As an example: the Ragnarok characters of Vitharr and
Heimdalr show up as Visnu and Dyaus [in the Vedic texts] and Krsna and 
Bhisma [in the Mahabharata]).  

In ancient Iranian mythology there is also a tale of a final struggle between
Gods and demons which ends up with the world being turned into molten metal.
This story is from Zoroastrian texts and is called Fraskart.  It even includes
a parallel to the tale of Odin binding the wolf Fenrir and Tyr losing his
hand as part of the bargain.

Ancient Roman mythology also carries in same story in the tale of the 
Republican War and the battle of Lake Regillus.  It also has a character like
Tyr (Mucius Scaevola) who intentionally burns off his right hand. (There were
even Roman temples where the priests symbolically bandaged their right hands
in memory of the tale!)

In Celtic mythology the tale of the triumph of the Tuatha comes from the same
root.  Again there is a God named "Nuada of the Silver Hand" who also loses
his hand in the battle against the Fir Bolg.

All one BIG family...
Fox

parallel evolution, cultural transmission or syncratism and dialectic develop
ment?  shall we open that can of worms?  Thanks for a good summary.

Okay.  Paralell myths fine: Vikings and Saxons has the same gods,
with differnt spellings and slightly different pronounciation of the
names.  In all mythology books I've read, it is quite clear that
Ragnaroek is a Christian Perversion.  No religion would have the
deaths of their own gods.

when you look at parallel evolution of myths, look farther apart- is there a
similar tale (especially at the same time) among the Incas? In India?  Africa?
North America?  The Steppe region? etc.-- I leave out the Saami and discount
the Saxons as a fair comparison to the Norse because they had too much contact
so would have influenced one another.  Parallel implies spontaneous.

As to your last statement, the Greeks do- Cronos killed all but one of his 
kids, the Titans, if I remember correctly.  Classical gods and demi-gods are
always trashing on one another, although the only wholesale "changing of the
guard" is the one involving the kids of Cronos and Gaia.  Um, does anyone
know if I'm getting this right?  It's not my primary field of study. As to that
one--
The Celts had a fun habit of retro-fitting history that continued into Xtian
times so that they could have Jesus, Mary, Noah, Joseph of Arimathea, etc. 
showing up in their land and lineages.  Beside that, they have a cycle of 
invasions in which a bunch of more-or-less godlike folks show up, conquer the
land and win the hand of its sovereignty goddesses, make quite an impact, and
all die off but one.  It is said that the "fairies" are what happened to the
last such race of gods before the Sons of Mil, the ancestors of the Celts (I
think) showed up and beat them under ground.  Anyway, that's the quick and 
dirty version.  The definition of "deity" of "supernatural" is very fuzzy with
the Celts because they like to work with the places where things meet; a lot
of heroes have divine foster parents and seem god-like, a lot of gods act p
pretty human and end up siring mortal kids.  And yes, most of the Celtic
stories we have now were written down by monks in the 13th Century and slightly
changed in the process, but a lot can be worked out anyway.

I'm sorry guys but I'm not making this stuff up.  There is a well established
field of Comparative Mythology out there. (I didn't mean to sound that snotty
about it, sorry >8-}.  
I'm in the middle of dragging myself through "Comparative Mythology" by Jaan
Puhvel and recommend it.  It's a little dry at times but very informative.

This is more than I few parallels that we're talking about.  We know the 
histories and migrations of these peoples from Archaeological, genetic, and
linguistic studies.  We know that they were all living together, at what times
,
and when each of the different peoples migrated away from the source.  The
respective religions have an overwhelming similarity, far beyond the 
example of Ragnarok that I sited.  And for that matter the legal systems, 
social class structures, artistic styles, etc. etc. also fall into this.

Although it is true that much of the Northwestern European info was 
recorded by later x-tians with is not true of the Indian or Iranian stuff.
(Nor the Greek or Roman...I think?)  

Vidar, as far as these sources that claim that it was x-tian perversion, 
I would love to hear what they are, I'd like to check it out.

Fox

It's not the sources it's obvious.  For the religion of the Vikings the Germans
and whover the hell else practiced it was the "Old Norse, " (cause I can't
think of a better name) religion that they all had.  The things that make
Ragnarok a X-tian perversion, well, just read the whole story and you'll find
lots of parallels to the (Ick) Christian End of the World.  Not all of it's the
same, but enough to make it clear that it is Christian persversion. In fact, if
I didn't believe that it was a Christian perversion, would I commune with Odin?
 It was clearly a lie...X-tian or not, a lie.

Vidar, you're NOT LISTENING! I realize Fox and I get a bit formal and abstract
at times, but we each tried to give a couple of specific examples.  I can go
 find whole stories to reprint here, but I hate to take up the time and space.
The point is that MANY cultures, some largely unadulterated, had apocolyptic
images- perhaps as a warning to live right while there was time, perhaps to
explain horrendous climatic events or the fact that their societies had 
started from after a cataclysm of which they had dim memories, whatever. 
Abhorent as we may find what the Xtian establishment did to others, the origin
of the religion is no less valid than many.  As they were gaining in strength,
the Xtian leaders were well known to co-opt native beliefs that fit with their
world view, so they may have GOTTEN the last-days notion from the Norse or
Hindus or Iranians.  Hard to tell.  I know it's hard, but try to evaluate the
content of Xtian religion in its oldest, purest form without the baggage of
crap that's been added by a few all-too-powerful assholes over the centuries.
It's good to get free of anger and hatred in regard to a large part of the 
Western world's population- save it for those whose actions earn it.

For the greek myth, Chronos just swallowed his sons,
leaving them alive in his belly.  Eventually, Zeus, 
the son he didn't swallow, cut Chronos open and got
his brothers and sisters out.  Chronos did not die
from this 'operation'.

thank you, vishnu.  Hadn't read it in a while.  Come to think of it, are the
Norse gods expected to die an irrevocable death or just become obsolete?

All but eight are to die, in battle.
Make that all but Seven, tow names for one god are used for two seperate gods
who are in fact, the same god.

Just as there are many forms of Vishnu, such as Krishna?

? ? ? ?

axe, which part didn't you get?  have you read the whole item yet?

I tried to, but I got confused.

what was confusing- refer to something specific or ask a question.  One of
us will try to help.  I wonder where Fox has gotten to lately?

He's still around.  I just been popping in briefly to check on the action but
have been pretty busy with work and Grove stuff.  I'll jump in here and there.
Fox

Re#11: Sort of.  The AEsir left after Ragnarok are Modi & Magni (sons of Thor),
Vidar and Vali (sons of Odin).  The surviving Vanir are: Vili (the will), Ve &
Holiness.  Vili is also called Will.


Re#Whoever cares: I don't really think Ragnarok ever happened in the Myths
until
 Christian influence.  The story makes it quite obvious that a lot of it is 
Anglo-Saxon bullshit.  The rest may be untainted, but I ask you to compare
Ragnaroek to The End of the World and Judgement day.  You will see what I
mean.

browse
?

Ragnarokk, Armageddon, it's all the same.
the thing is, there are some things central to our
way of thinking, and one is how did it begin, and one
is how will it end.

I'd agree.
But I'd also bring up the observation that the means to getting there are
sometimes ver different.

And now for something completely different...

My position on all this is rather different from that of most people
here.  My personal belief is that it is impossible, and in fact pointless,
to think about whether something exists or not.  All that I can know
for sure is that my mind exists (and possibly some sort of "spirit/soul").
Everything else exists only as far as I can sense it.

It is also, therefore, pointless to worry about the existence of
deities, as all we can know is what we can sense about them, and that
could well be false.  On the other hand, though, they are very useful
mental constructs--the thought that your prayers *will* be answered, and
al2)(*

not an uncommon viewpoint.
I've also decided it's irrelevant: they act "real", they feel "real", I
might as well treat them as "real"- the benefits are.

AWK!!!  SOrry, cat on the keyboard.  Continuing

On the other hand, though, they are very useful mental constructs--the
thought that you prayers *will* be answered, and that there *is* a better life
to come, etc, makes life easier.

Unfortunately, this philosophy, combined with a very sceptical mind,
make it very difficult for me to have the blind faith that most religions 
require.  Therefore, for a lond time i've been looking for a religion that
I *can* belive in, because i *know* how useful a mental construct religion can
be.

kami:  the benefits are, at least in my experience, not physical but 
mental--increased confidence, etc., due to the belief that you are being
watched over.  

interesting conundrum:
person needs a new job.  they pray to deity x with real faith, and have a
strong sense of presence while doing so, so they are quite convinced the
prayer was heard and accepted.  said person goes to tomorrows interview
with new confidence, so their bearing is strong and tall which makes
their clothing and suchlike look better, and speaks firmly and calmly
since after all, the god is behind them.  the interviewer is impressed
and decides to hire them.  Now, was it the intervention of the god, adding
their glamour to the presence of the person and encouraging the interviewers
good opinion, or was it merely the sureness of the person that influenced
the interviewer?  does it matter?  the effect is still tangible: the person
got what they asked for.  so, indeed, the effects are mental, but might
bear out in the physical world.  so again, the matter of the "realness"
of the gods is not crucial.

To paraphrase the Charge of the Goddess:  IF you do not find what you 
seek within yourself, do not bother seeking without:  if it doesn't exist
inside it doesn't exist outside.
While there are theological ramifications of this beyond that example, I
believe it's applicable:  one thing that prayer does is strengthen your
internal forces as well as getting help from external forces.

Another point to prayer is, if it gets the job done, why does it matter 
why it works?  (Now *that* of course is an oversimplification -- it might
work by harming others, which wouldn't be good, but be that as it may).
Am I babblin g again?  Maybe a bit.  I'll shut up for now.  :)

I've toyed with the nothing is real philosophy, and decided that, like
kami said, if it acts real, them it might as well be real.  It not only
acts real and consistant for me, however, but real and consistant for
others too.  This tends to make me think that it is real.

        Why not?

why not what?- why not consider the perception of a thing as real to be
the same as it having objective reality?  Well, if a dream/psychic nasty
is making a person ill, it can be "exorcized" by shamanic healing 
techniques which might be surprisingly effective against a cancer which
is visualized in the same way, but if there's a bacterium behind it, or
even a cancer, I'd want to go get an antibiotic or chemotherapy as well.
Do you see the difference?  It's in how many data points we look for
before deciding we "know" what a thing is.

        Well, then there's knowing parts of what a thing is. That, by its'
lonesome, should count for something.

counts for something, yes.  But if you only have part of the picture, you
may still make inaccurate or ineffective choices.  Often we have no choice,
cannot know all of the picture or don't even realize that there's anything
missing, but we do the best we can with what we have.

        right. That's what I was geting at.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss