ChristMyth

Another question: Let's assume that AS is going back to quote 19c scholars (just for the record, I've never read any of her work, so I'm going on assumptions here), could there be a reason for this other than "shoddy scholarship"?

Given what I understand of her POV on the topic of religion, most of modern day scholars consider the topic of a MJ and astrotheology out of the question and refuse to discuss it seriously. This would mean that there would be a very small number of scholarly works to draw from to support her thesis.

There are, however, more works supporting her ideas the farther back in time you go. It seems that during the 19th and early 20th century, it was quite alright to question the historicity of Jesus and even question the idea that the whole text was based on other religions that inspired early Christianity and Judaism.

Even if these texts are not entirely reliable as a peer reviewed journal of today, is it possible that we shouldn't toss most of it out the window because the vast majority of it has been disproved by modern findings? Couldn't there be a germ of an idea that has been lost in the rubble that could give a new way of looking at a particular topic (such as astrotheology) that was considered completely ludicrous then, but may be backup up by findings today?

GakuseiDon

There certainly is a reason for it, though it is consistent with "shoddy scholarship".

One thing that Acharya often emphasises is how her source is a "pious" Christian scholar who (as I quoted her above) "unwillingly and against interest exposed this information". Now, she is a member of FRDB, so I can't accuse her of deliberate and overt deception. And I wouldn't dream of accusing her of deliberate and overt deception. However, I will say that, if she has really read those works, she should know that many of the 19th C scholars she quotes from believed that showing similarities between Christianity and non-Christian religions was a good thing, and it was definitely in their interest to do so.

For example, the two authors she used in the extract I gave above are Rev John Lundy and Godfrey Higgins. Lundy's book was called "Monumental Christianity -- or the Art and Symbolism of the Primitive Church as Witnesses and Teachers of the One Catholic Faith and Practice". He wanted to prove that Christianity was "the one Catholic faith and practice" by exposing how other worldwide religions were simply variations of Christianity. So compiling those similarities was regarded as a benefit to Christianity, if not proof of its validity.

Higgins, a Freemason and Druid, wanted to show that "all the ancient Mythologies of the world, which, however varied, and corrupted in recent times, were originally one, and that one founded on principles sublime, beautiful, and true." IIRC Higgins believed that Judaism and Druidism developed from Hindus in India, who migrated West and East taking their beliefs with them.

Stressing similarities between Christianity and other religions goes back to Justin Martyr. Acharya often makes it sound like those writers did it reluctantly, though often the opposite was the case.

There was a whole cottage industry in the 19th C for books on fantastic topics like Atlantis, spiritualism, Psychical Research, Christian Science, Theosophy. One of those topics was that "all religions are one".

Really, take your pick. Could you not say the same thing about Atlantis, spiritualism, Psychical Research, Christian Science and Theosophy?

rcscwc

I dunno. But Krishna WAS NOT crucified, except in the imagination of Acharya and her XIX cebtury sources.

GakuseiDon

That's right. It kind of makes a contradiction of Dave's earlier statement, which he even emphasized via bold font:

"So, often, the 19th c. source is simply a starting point. Then she digs up the original, primary sources and provides them in her book in the original languages, with sometimes more than one translations."

But on the "crucified Krishna", Archarya herself suggests that there are no primary sources nowadays, possibly because the British destroyed the evidence when they invaded India.

Usually Dave weighs in with a "LOL" and then "read the books" (though he won't cite page numbers where the information can be found). But since I am quoting Acharya from her book, I'm not sure how he will react.

Dave, I'm not having a go at you, mate. You can believe or disbelieve as your heart dictates. But can you at least confirm that I am representing Acharya correctly here, please?

Toto

The last time the subject of a crucified Krishna came up, a poster from India said that she thought that Christian missionaries had invented the idea to make Christianity seem more palatable to potential converts.

Note that Acharya S finds "crucifixion" whenever there are two lines crossing. She says Horus was crucified based on However, I don't know of any cross symbols associated with Krishna. I suspect Acharya S is just having a hard time giving up her defense of Kersey Graves, who wrote here Kersey Graves seems to be relying on Anacalypsis, Part 1: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Godfrey Higgins (also on google books, but easier to read on Amazon.)

There is a contemporary criticism of Graves and Higgins here in "Gospels not Brahmanic": (There is more of interest at that source.)

The idea that Krisha was crucified, or matched Jesus' story in any way, is the weakest point in Acharya S's work. It is the sort of thing that a critical examination of 19th century sources should have cleared out in an effort to see if there is in fact something worth preserving from those sources.

gurugeorge

But hang on though, the thing is, as I understand it, she's not construing "crucified" in the Roman judicial sense (that would obviously be anachronistic and culturally impossible for most of the myths). I think, rather, that she's saying the Roman judicial sense of crucifixion suffered by Jesus as set forth in Christian myth is another example of the symbolism of crucifixion in the broader, spiritual sense. (Metonymy.)

IOW, we have inherited (and are therefore familiar with) this Christian myth, the centrepiece of which is this business of God suffering/incarcerated in, "dying in", flesh/matter, and in the Christian myth this is represented by the brutal Roman judicial act of crucifixion.

Now all the "Christ myths" have a logical space for the same "thing" (a symbol of spirit suffering in, tortured by, matter), usually filled by some variation on judicial punishment, or some gruesome form of dismemberment or torture. These are ALL symbols of the same "thing", and they're all supposed to point to the same idea: that our unease and discomfort at being "nailed to" a material world is the token of our inner divinity. (Paul: "Christ in us" is that in us which feels uncomfortable with the world and cries Abba! Father!)

But because we're most familiar with the Christian version of this idea, it's legitimate for us to call the broader thing "crucifixion". It's just metonymy with the term "crucifixion", taking advantage of the established understanding we we have of it from the Christian version of that broader spiritual myth.

aa5874

Surely not all the 'Christ myths" had a symbol of suffering in, tortured by, matter.

Jesus Christ the GOD/MAN was placed on a cross but Marcion's Phantom could not. The Phantom had no flesh.

Toto

That's the problem - if you look for a broad enough pattern, you can find it somehow.

However, Moore, Higgins, and Graves make very specific claims about Krishna that seem to have come out of the air, that cannot be confirmed from any reliable source.

rcscwc

Since Krishma "died" sitting on a rock, cross is not made out in the wisest sence. Cross means where a man is nailed, by one or ten nails, and pinned to an object. Not the case with Krishna.

Of course some have tried to mention that Krishna's foot was pinned to a tree. No, it was not.


Even there it fails. Krishna did not undergo any suffering at all. Moreover, no one ordered His execution.

Nailed to the material world ?? NO,no. He Himself said He was not BOUND in that sense [Bhagawad Gita].

gurugeorge

It's true that the patterns proposed are exceedingly abstract - but there is a constraint, in fact several constraints.

There's what we know about the biology, neurology, psychology, sociology, etc., etc., of man.

We are dealing with religion, not just philosophy - it's not just (cosmological and philosophical) ideas, but passionate practices we're talking about: ritual magic, ecstatic visions, mystical experiences. That stuff comes first, before the scribbling. And it's driven by some commonalities across human physiology (e.g. the effects of prayer, chanting, rituals, breathing exercises; lucid dreams, trance states, pathological conditions, etc., etc.)

It's true that, sadly, the closest we've got to a scientific understanding of that "borderland" (yet hugely important to the origins of religion) type of experience is poor old Jung. But at least he's a start, and cognitive science is now proceeding to light a lamp in those areas. The loftier reaches of philosophy are also relevant here: certain things are just good logical moves in thought; plus there's our ever-present existential angst.

Anyway, the point is, the ecstatic, visionary founders of religion view God as both a personal thing (an entity they've met and communicated with in trance states) and a cosmic principle. (Solo thinks this is a pathological affair; I think less so, and think it's something healthy and normal people can access too, but I think he's basically right about the primacy of this.)

Each succeeding generation is less likely to be able to access precisely the kinds of experiences the founder(s) did, so the cosmic principle becomes more important, and religion becomes more about talk and ideas, and less about personal experience (save moral growth perhaps). The more so as the religion becomes socialized and established.

So: all this is context for "the meaning of a religious symbol". It changes diachronically, along with the receding of the importance of ecstatic experience in the religious community. The earlier meanings are mythological, highly philosophical, for sure, but also mystical, visionary; also to do with practices and the results of practices. The later meanings are mythological and philosophical only. Also, at that point, influences from the interplay of social forces comes into effect too, as the meanings of symbols get coloured by the power-play of their users.

So IMHO this is how a "revival" of the 19th century type of investigation should start: from understanding how mystical and visionary experience are produced, and what sorts of patterns of ideas (at a highly abstract level) are generated by this kind of experience. These are then the abstracta that you look for in ancient religious scribblings.