I've heard that Nietzsche was among the first to theorize the personalities and stories of various deities being based on the environment surrounding indigenous people.
For example, the possible reason YHWH and other desert deities were cruel and demanding is because the harsh desert environment would very easily destroy their life line (rivers, crop yield, ect.) causing mass death.
Who out their in the field is a leading supporter of this concept? What correlations have you noticed yourself?
Jungian Archetype also speaks about it somewhat. I have to refresh my Psychology books before I can say solidly that Nietzsche was the first to correlate that nature might have the basing for the character of a deity.
I have read that the earliest of religions was based around the "sacred" and the "obscene". It was observed that earlier culture deemed something sacred and cults arose around it, protecting it from things which were "impure" and "obscene". These things became taboo. Breaking taboo was deemed punishable.
YHWH is a storm deity like his counterparts Adad Ba'al and Zeus and their original archetype, Ninurta.
Ninurta, while being a storm deity, was also a cruel hunter and a war deity. These archetypes were carried over as various iterations and thus they were cruel, not the other way around. You may say that storm was seen as something to be afraid of because of strong winds and thunder.
I'm no expert, but i think it's pretty bang on. After all, we were (still are ultimately) a part of nature. What else could we possibly have referred to so early in our history? Our earliest uses of symbolism in cave drawings and later, ornamentation of clothing, all relates to animals, plants, the weather, land marks, habitats, the sun, the stars, the moon, day, night, ect. These are the fundamentals, the baseline entities and concepts which represent the primitive human reality of the time. From here, our superior intelligence and imaginative abilities embellished the rest of the symbolism into narratives, as a means of solidifying and teaching, passing on in tradition, down the generations because it allowed us to feel connected to each other and our offspring. Pagan religions never set out to politicize and moralize life, that is a very very modern invention. This is why 'nature' instead, appears to be such an important theme in many of them, because that's what life is, that's what we are.
You are correct. My ancestors were very respectful towards nature and saw Nature as the nourisher, like a mother and the force driving her as the source, like a father. The mountains, the rivers, the forest, it was all seen and accepted as the forces that governed reality. The religion itself was never at the centre of politics and morality. In fact, religious reverence was the one time when community set aside the politics of hierarchy and ruling authority and just celebrate.
After the interaction with outer societies, the modern concept of what a religion should be, is very apparent. Religion is seen as a domain of supremacy and otherness and a means to control the society, completely denying what it actually means.
>Nietzsche was the first to correlate that nature might have the basing for the character of a deity.
the first people to make that correlation were the preists and seers who wrote the myths and "created" the deities
>YHWH is just a cultural meme extension of Ninurta
Wouldn't you say that a storm god in a desert region would be depicted as being more aggressive based on the severity of the weather in those regions?
So given the idea that a lot of polytheistic religions had gods that were inspired by nature, how does this work with religions like Hinduism and more importantly, monotheistic religions like Zoroastrianism and the Abrhamaic faiths?
The Abrahamic religions grew increasing separate from nature to the point of demonizing it. Was this merely a result of urbanization and the invention of escapism, when people started to realize that it was nature who was wrong?
>the first people to make that correlation were the preists and seers who wrote the myths and "created" the deities.
What I understand was that the OP was discussing about the relevance of our time; how scholars of our time see the past and define the evolution of deities. But you are partially correct as well.
The Sumerian understanding of "divine beings" however, is very peculiar. On one hand, they fear the wrath of their deities but on the other hands, they are not shy about describing their so-called "Gods" as being very "human-like" and having the quality of mortality. They differ in the intimate description of Gods with respect to the Greeks and the Vedic writers in that no description is metaphorical in nature, ever. The earlier myths are further confusing in that, the power of Gods are a separate case from the natural display of events. For example, Ninurta flying around is equated with a thunderstorm, smiting evil enemies but an actual storm is defined quite separate phenomena and beyond the domain of Ninurta. Ninurta could bring in Storms, but a natural storm wasn't controllable by him in reverse.
They speak about their Gods as if they are some kind of mortals who are a separate class. These Gods get ill when eating spoilt meat and milk. One of the God was killed and never resurrected. The flood story is especially peculiar in that the Gods have prescience of the coming of the flood but they are not the originator of the event and are powerless to stop it. They also choose to keep the event a secret from the mankind.
These difference however diminished from the records and social memory during the time they began co-existing with Semitic Akkadians.
Were the Akkaidians the ones that brought the idea that there was an over-branching pantheon of gods but your city personification god deserved the most tribute?
>depicted as being more aggressive based on the severity of the weather...
Yes. I agree.
Though, you also have to look through the historical interrelationship the followers of YHWH as a national god had with their neighbours. The theological explanation justifies the aggressiveness as the defiance of other nations but the real historical sources outside biblical narratives are exact mirror opposite. The Moabite Stele is extremely interesting, in that, it paints YHWH and his nation as the oppressor and defiant one.
The close neighbours of Israel, the Ugarit, who are lazily lumped together as all being Canaanites; they describe the same stormy weather in the same geography and biome that YHWH is supposed to portray but for them it is benign and bringer of crops (rain).
>It paints YHWH as the oppressor and defiant one.
Well wasn't El still pretty much top dog in the time before Israel decided that only their city god would be worshiped?
But gods act similar throughout Europe, MENA, Persia and India. Regardless of environment.
>So given the idea that a lot of polytheistic religions had gods that were inspired by nature, how does this work with religions like Hinduism and more importantly, monotheistic religions like Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths?
Very interesting question user. Thank you. Very seldom do I get a civil discussion here.
All three examples that you have provided, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Abrahamic faiths had a polytheistic past.
Hinduism in its present structure is an amalgamation of 4 distinct theology - a form of popular faith which Atharva Veda vaguely hints at, which was brought by the people who once inhabited of Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex; the Rig Vedic pastoralists who came from north of Afghanistan; the native worshippers of the God-couple of a hunter and the nature venerated by smooth erect stones, the crocodile and the ocean and the other native worshippers of formless God-couple venerated by Sun and a primaeval moon.
The religious syncretism is clearly depicted in the kind of mythological stories that Hinduism deems holy. The original Rig Vedic deities, centred around Indra(Thunder) like Agni (fire), Varuna (Water of ocean and the sky) and Rudra(Storm and War) are like the Sanskritic version of Greek and Roman pantheon which in turn are the European version of Phoenicians and ultimately it distill down to Sumerian archetypes. The Puranic traditions which are written very late, well into the Indian subcontinent chastize Indra and reject his supremacy in lieu of syncretic Gods that arise out of Vedic+Native gods. Vishnu while retaining the Vedic name, is nowhere near his Vedic image, instead, he is depicted as an omnipotent God having his domain in a watery-place. Rudra is transformed into Shiva, a hunter-like God who wear Cheetah skin and live high in mountains and creator Brahma who is denied worship. These mythological events mirrored the conflict that the followers of these sects went through in order to gain supremacy.
When a flood kills your family and you've done everything right to appease the gods is it any wonder why they're all sort of have the same personality?
The Zoroastrianism is a reformed version of the Western remnant of Indo-Iranian religion. The Vedic Imagery is like a mirror-image of Zoroastrian mythology.
Zoroastrianism rejects Indar ( the Iranian form of Indra) and exalt Ahura Mazda. The Vedic mythology later in their narratives hate Asuras. It is a common known linguistic fact that Iranian phonology had replaced dental s with voiced h. It is the reason that Hindu are called Hindu. A name which came from the region around the Sindhu river. Zoroaster consolidated the Vedic-like Iranian religions and forced a reform, much like Elijah and other prophets did for Judaism. The polytheistic past was reduced to Angels and Demons and Fairies and whatnot.
For Abrahamic faith I need a separate post. But I will start with this - it ended and redacted its polytheistic past during the Babylonian exile.
No. It had begun well before.
The competition of Ur, Lagash, Eridu for supremacy is well known and attested, even before Akkad started to rise in power.
>Indra gets rejected twice
This is the first time I've heard of this deity and he already sounds like he had a bad break.
I could be said that perhaps yes. The Biblical El, Elohim and El Elyon have gone through so many redactions, repurposing and deletions that one find it an incoherent mess of mythology. But scholars do agree that Canaanite El, is pretty much what Bible calls El Elyon i.e. The Most High.
The Dead Sea Scrolls which survived the later years of tampering clearly states that Israel was the lot fated to YHWH after division among the sons of God. Israelis just declared that ours is the one who will inherit the title of the most high and ran with it. The Ba'al cycle uncovered in Ugarit confers the competitive nature as well.
So as far as I know in ancient Mesopotamia you didn't really question the existence of another persons god. You simply accepted that one city had a god and your city had a god and if you went to war your gods would fight.
Was this unique to Mesopotamia or was there a culture wave where one culture such as Judea convinced the notion of rejecting other deities and thus this idea spread to other cultures, eliminating the unquestioning religious tolerance of the indo-european realm? By the time Jews showed up in Greece the Greeks had no issue claiming their god wasn't real and vice versa, I want to know if that element was convergent.
You have no idea. Indra is like the quintessential bully who is the butt of Puranic jokes, get cursed every time, is rejected and is taught humiliating lessons, gets his butt kicked by demons everytime.
I think it has to do with the cultural shifting which was going on during that time in the real world. The Vedic pastoralists weren't simple nomads. They had a primitive 3-tier society with priests, warriors and traders and they weren't exactly welcomed in India. Their encounters with native must have taught them that praying to Indra wasn't giving them any favours and they were getting their butts kicked by the natives. The adoption of native Gods and then rejecting Indra as a lesser God could be seen as the Vedic Aryans changing their allegiance to gain favours from native and then subvert it to rule again.
>The Abrahamic religions grew increasing separate... nature who was wrong?
>Was this unique to Mesopotamia or was there a culture wave where one culture such as Judea... was convergent.
Both of these questions are similar so I will try as a single answer post. If unsatisfied, post again.
The Old Testament still has glimpse and hints of its Polytheistic past and even after censorship from scribes, many verses contain the broken stories that are clearly not the exaltation of YHWH. However during the exile in Babylon, Hebrews became very introspective - they questioned the legitimacy of their polytheism and envied the extravagant opulence of Babylon and its supremacy (it is one of the reasons that all curses are some form of epithet of Babylon, whereas it was in its decline by the time Hebrews were in exile). In a reactionary move, they created monotheism. It could be said that Monotheism was a resistance and an antagonistic birth of religion against the natural flow of social convention.
It wasn't unique to the time of Babylonian exile. The exodus of Moses is the first trial, an antagonistic approach against the polytheism of Egypt.
The notion that by rejecting other deities, and exalting your patron or national God to one true God you may receive the throne of world and you will prevail over other people is actually quite old. Mesopotamians did acknowledged that other deities existed but they had no qualms about rejecting their divinity before the force of "their" God.
If I have to pick a precedence, I would choose Marduk. His whole ascension is quite antagonistic to whole pantheon of Mesopotamian gods. When Assyrians rose to power, they emulated the same model and exalted Asshur over others and rejected Marduk.
Judea rejected Chemosh and Ba'al and did not outright said Yahweh was supreme, his ascension also follows Babylonian model where the supreme deity El is carefully, scripturally and narratively replaced. Islam is the same.
That is actually a lot simpler than I expected. Granted it's pretty much common knowledge that ancient Israelites were incredibly vindictive of their neighbors.
All the stuff about mocking worshipers of idols by claiming they believed their statues were in fact gods (probably a false claim to mock them as primitive) hatred of pigs (Fact check me on that but I think it was a sacred animal for many of their neighbors) and calling Ba'al lord of the flies (pile of shit) pretty much shows just how salty they were.
I'm sorry that I wasn't able to write more because of the word limit here. I would refrain from calling it a simple cultural phenomenon. Various historians argue that the vindictive nature of Yahweh and thus his followers (which can be said of just the religious leaders and the scribes; common people did not have the resources, education and inclination either way) had some historical precedent. It is no secret that Moses was either a royalty or was connected to the royalty and thus deeply taught in the hidden priestly acts of Egyptian culture. Abraham's father was the priest of Moon god Zu.en in Ur.
The Bible also insistently focuses on the purity of priest classes and duties and rituals a tad too obsessively. It could be that they were privy to things which weren't written outrightly in the scriptures, only orally transmitted and that could be one of the reasons of the heavy resistance. The Judaic Kings are always lenient and often reprimanded by the priests or prophets.
I too don't exactly recall as to which culture had Pigs as being sacred but most of the Mesopotamian cultures avoided its meat for fear of affliction. Ba'al being lord of flies is a very lame pun that later scribes made; I don't remember right now but the actual description has to do with power or something.
Funny thing, Bible at one point tells that so-called Israelites used to call their God Ba'al but "Now you will not call me by the name Ba'al" order is given later; around the same time when the priests of Ba'al are portrayed as deranged lunatics (the fire from heaven incident). The Ugaritic history sheds light that Ba'al isn't a personal name. Like El, Ba'al too is a generic name simply meaning My lord, or My god etc,
So back on the topic at hand, is there a correlation between open environments such as deserts or seas and their pantheon chiefs being storm or sky deities?
Do cultures that live in forested areas tend to place less emphasis on the sky and more on the earth in terms hierarchy?
Take Greeks for example, you have Zeus who is god of the sky and thunder. His brother Poseidon is seemingly the second most prominent and well known Olympian in greek mythology. This makes sense because Greeks were a sea fairing people with huge populations living on islands that depended on seafood and thus the ocean was incredibly important to them.
However, even as the sea had such a huge role in their lives Poseidon was still second Banana to the almighty Zeus and his rule breaking bullshit with the Fates. Is it simply because of the indo-european cultural wave brought with it a strong cultural memory all the way back in Sumeria where the sky was the greatest heavenly body?
But back to the former point/question. The greeks had a sea god pretty high in the hierarchy in terms of relevance. From what I know, the Mesopotamia "sea god" was Tiamat, goddess of salt water.
Now if I recall she is likely to have had a greater role in the past but then Marduk came and aptly wrecked the original lore by being turned into a god-mary sue and killing his grandmother so he could be the new top god. It seems that even with this in mind, a sea god wasn't that important because the Mesopotamians had little to do with the sea. It was where the twin rivers left and that's it. She was nothing but something akin to Chaos in greek mythology and not that important.
It seems what I'm asking is obvious, but it's not like i can say Norse had snow gods because they know of snow and desert people who don't even know what snow is obviously wouldn't have one, but I can't say that for certain because of how culture is memetic.
People actually take Nietzsche seriously?
This guy destroyed him.
>Ba'al means lord
Yeah I knew that, but I can't remember which god ancient historians believe the Hebrews were referring to when they were talking shit about Ba'al. I think it was Hadad or some god which could be given the title Ba'al but wasn't necessarily chief deity of Babylon at the time.
>Baal being lord of flies was a really lame pun about power.
Baal Ze Buub, lord of flies. Flies are attracted to shit, therefore Baal ruling over flies equates to him being a pile of exrcrement.
Humor has surprisingly not changed much from ancient times. You probably know of the graffiti on the Parthenon where it's basically guys bragging about how many women they've dicked.
>literal who
Yeah, nah. Your pet philosopher that nonody ever heard of didn't blow anyone out.
>argument from popularity
Not very Nietzschean
No, I don't think that there is a correlation between open environments and their pantheon chief being Storm of Sky deities.
My own native religion has the central deity as a formless God, whose prominence is made manifest as Sun. We call him the great spirit and at the same time, Sun is on its own. Our surrounding has Deciduous Flora and Moderate to extreme Monsoonal rain. Our culture never exalted Rain or Thunder even though we see some of the powerful sub-tropical storms. Still, the earth is second in the hierarchical tree, then mountains, then rivers and the forest guardians, the village guardians and then the clan spirits.
As I said earlier, the Greeks attribute the mythology of their pantheons to the Phoenicians. They said that their Gods came from the Taurus mountains (the Titans). And Phoenician mythology was the refined form of Mesopotamian pantheon. This is where the chief deity being a storm, thunder, lightning comes from. Even the far-flung Vedic Aryans whose central deity Indra was adapted from the central Asians In-mar, it retained the characteristics of storm god simply replacing Dyaus Pitr (Cognate same to Zeus Pater and Jupiter). The second place is always an oceanic deity.
I say it mirrors Mesopotamian pantheon because even though Akkadians had their deities living near the Cedar forest of Lebanon and Babylon basically in the desert near two rivers. They followed the Old Sumerian version where Enlil was the Chief deity, of storm, sky and lightning, his brother was called the lord of earth, water and ocean (whose domain was the southern Arabian littorals and Bahrain)
The whole Tiamat fiasco was Marduk's propaganda in a rise to ascension. I will post about this in details in a separate post. Word limit so Norse one too there.
About Norse having snow deity - if you will notice - they retain their core pantheon exactly as it is - Odin is still called Skyfather and Thor is a god of thunder but they had a different relationship with the ocean so the deity like Poseidon isn't prominent. Instead, they focus on a mischievous god and the war with prominently "fertility based" native gods, called Vanir while retaining the narrative of Old Vs New pantheon.
The snow aspect comes completely separate from the pantheon in stories of a completely separate realm of ice and ice-demons. If you compare, desert cultures had similar "demons" but had the properties of "mirage" or trick and torment (Jinns of the Arab).
Tiamat or Ti-amtu by linguistic root is "Source of life" depicted by Salt-water. Historians see it as the observation of mixing of freshwater with seawater in the Gulf of Arabia. However, the story has a precedent in the Sumerian mythology - the destruction of a Female watery principle by a male warrior God who is specifically "chosen" for the task. The reward is the exaltation of the winner God and a seat of the head of Pantheon.
The original warrior was Nudimmud who was very crafty and as of his namesake, a master architect. This fragment is now not available in public museums if there even has any tablet, but reconstructable through other tablets. The second iteration has Enlil as the chosen Champion. Nudimmud is bitter when throne goes to Enlil, his younger brother and is given consolatory title - the lord of earth, Enki. Enki has the domain of sea. The third iteration saw Ninurta, son of Enlil, defeating a similar adversary and given the title, Great Hunter. Thus it became a memetic law that to have power, fame, throne, influence, you had to win against a monster, preferably as dangerous as the original watery monster. I don't have to explain in detail but you will know - Zeus vs Typhon, Hercules vs Hydra, Indra vs Vritra, Ahura Mazda vs Azi-Dahak, Yahweh vs Leviathan
Just by going through my rusty Phoenician Mythology studies, I would say Hadad/Adad would fit the criteria. In the Phoenician/Canaanite Pantheon, Hadad was one of the 70 sons of El, an elder brother to YHWH. He wasn't a chief deity in the southern kingdoms but in the northern regions in and around Syria, Lebanon, Turkey etc.
The south venerated other deities which were distinct but similar in character. Babylon ran with their Marduk
>The exclusive environmental aspects such as snow are allocated to less significant pantheons
So that means the environmental element still persists, but the transfer of the cultural idea of the pantheon seemingly prevents additions to the core pantheon based on environmental differences, I.E the original Sumerian meme has nothing about snow so Norse had to apply their own personal aspects to another deity group.
I was thinking it could also be because snow and desert aren't typically viewed as good, life giving things like rain but some of the Norse frost giants actually represented fun things about snow, like skiing.
>Yahweh vs Leviathan
Do Ziz and Behemoth have Sumerian origins or were they extras added to the water monster meme?
>My culture is surrounded by deciduous flora and moderate to extreme monsoonal rain.
Rain wouldn't be nearly as essentially to your ancestors life in that climate compared to a desert environment where the only means of surviving is irrigating water from a river.
I don't have much of a clue on solar deities because the sun is basically always there. To the Greeks it was just Helios, a second gen titan with a penchant for spying. To Egyptians it was Ra (or Ra + Aten) who is practically chief deity (Egyptian mythology is a mess, I'm aware that position changed constantly). In that sense I agree that the sun vs storm god role likely comes down purely to cultural history and how things spread.
However, I'm not convinced that a culture having exposure to a natural force and not applying a deity to it means that the concept didn't commonly occur. May I ask as to what culture/ethnic group you hail from?
Vishnu is described as supreme/omnipotent in the vedas. Vishnu and Rudra are also described as dwelling on mountains, and Rudra is also a hunter god in the vedas.
its symbolic and not about cultural shifting at all
>Implying there is a difference.
Yes. You are correct to assert that environmental elements do play a role but as an addendum rather than completely changing the core pantheon. Desert is a very harsh thing and requires a very specific set of lifestyle - not an easy task to adapt, similar is snow but unlike desert, snow melts during spring. Desert if eternally harsh. The deathly nature of desert wasn't completely ignored, while it didn't spawn deity like Spiderman's Sandman it did Anubis, Lilitu etc, etc.
No, rain is important, don't get my wrong. Along with deciduous climate, this place is a plateau and it becomes very dry during Summer (average temp can reach 48 deg C) and the fields are left undisturbed. But rain is seen something as an extension of Sky and gifts of Sky. I would also not classify us as Solar worshippers, though it is a common mistake done by first-time observers.
We do not worship the Sun. The sun is like a cross in the Church. The deity is always understood as unseen, omnipotent, omnipresent and beyond the sky, not the sky itself. It was one of the reasons that German Christian Missionaries were very fascinated with it and were surprised to learn about a primitive culture who didn't place their reverence into mundane things. I am from a native aboriginal tribe, called Munda People, of India in the East-Central part, predominantly spread in the plateau region. A fragmented state exists as a showpiece named Jharkhand (if you are interested to see the map).
He's a triggered Hindu who are always apologetic and defensive about how foreigners misunderstand Indian Religion. Well, surprise for him. I am Indian and I stand on the other side of the Vedic treachery and deceit.
There is a difference between Veda and Puran. They are written in different era and place. Their Sanskrit is different. Their geography is distinct.
Vishnu's name literally means the one who parted mountains not one living on it. And Purana's retcon doesn't count.
Rudra means Red Howler. He's a god who leaps into battle. He is a hunter of man. Shiva has no "red" attributes, quite opposite, Shiva means someone very handsome and white.
The hunter I spoke of wasn't manhunter but a hunting prodigy tow different things.
Of course, you would say it's symbolic - Half of India has been spouting these lies for millennia. Now that we minorities are speaking out on our own, not anymore.
In that case, I own a mask of Shiva looking fierce, got as a gift as I collect various masks.
Apparently it represents power but I'm always looking for subtle cultural insults or curses ever since I heard of the various ways halal shop owners insult non-muslims, such as decapitating a camel in front of them.
Is angry Shiva actually a signifier of power (something about slaughtering asura) or something ominous?
>Shiva is white
The mask is blue by the way, but Shiva has a third eye and Vishnu doesn't as far as I know.
Angry Shiva, in his Prototypical Rudra form, was the destroyer of Asura that is the Iranians. The imagery is of someone who despises Iranian Panis and Dahyus for threatening Vedic Aryans.
But since it known that Vedic Aryans were very bad at naming new things, they named the Indian natives, Asura born, demons and Mayavis
Once inside India, Shiva actually becomes a sympathetic figure to Asuras, social outcasts and lower castes, is hated by Vishnu worshipping Brahmins, becomes patron deity of mostly non-Aryan societies and it is very clearly depicted in the Puranic traditions. The competitive aspect of Vishnu and Shiva is the core of Shiva's marriage to Shakti, the daughter of a prominent Aryan King who sees Shiva as unacceptable. Like Romeo and Juliet, Shakti falls in love with Shiva but dies when King disrespect Shiva.
An angry Shiva here goes ahead and behead the King. Throughout the stories, he is benign to Asuras (now natives) and cares for their well-being but due to Aryan influence (biased narrative) act against them. The famous native King Ravana was a supreme Shiva worshipper and Aryan narrative of Ramayana glorifies his killing.
I would say that the mask actually doesn't mean anything. Mask in drama and art isn't a cultural thing for the majority, only specific societies. Traditional belief IS that Shiva signifies male principle of power.
Shiva's isn't blue all over. It is a misrepresentation often done even by Indian. Only his throat is blue because he drank poison. I would say Vishnu come close to being all blue but yes, he doesn't have a third eye.
So basically there is a shit load of cultural baggage between the Aryans and natives that still persists bitterly until this day?
For anyonemore interested in these topics, id recomnend "the masks of god" by Joseph Campbell, "the golden bough" by James George Frazer and perhaps "The white Goddess" and "The Greek Myths" by Robert Graves. Very Interesting topic indeed, this is the first real quality thread ive ever read on this board.
Thank you
>Vishnu comes close to being all blue
That's what google tells me. Does the Naga King have any connection to the watery creation beast meme?
Oh yes. It would have ended but after the Independence of India, when many educated Aboriginal natives demanded separate statehood for proper governance, that piece of shit Gandhi and his pet whore Nehru basically vetoed the discussion. And the constitution maker Ambedkar looked for favours of his low caste society and by a stroke of scribal definition lumped us together with them as the eternally victim people hated by all. Instead of helping us, it hampered our independence by a forceful integration which worked only one way.
The main reason was simply because our state has the richest and in most cases only source of all of India's quality coal, iron, bauxite, granite and Uranium.
Our lands are protected by patriarchal property-hood that supersede any sovereign powers but the hidden nature of constitution by its sheer volume and language of law which wasn't properly taught amongst our people, They illegally divided our lands into three different majority - Biharis, Bengali and Odiyas. Our native language was relegated to insignificant language, unrecognised to this day, our forefathers, even my father and mother were taught in regional languages which did not give them opportunities compared to the Hindu populations. Whatever we are, we are on our own.
The constitution wrote deliberate laws to safeguard against blatant racism which is called Reservation but it is demonised by Upper caste as being akin to White Privilege in the West. The law simply give us protection so that no Upper caste could malignly remove us from education. Even with the laws, there still are people who dont touch things touched by us. Don't speak to us in equal terms and say to our face that they don't want us to succeed. It isn't a baggage - it is outright incompatibility.
Thank you. I will look out for those books.
Naga King has various iterations, so much that sometimes it is overwhelming for me too.
The Sheshanaag, the resting bed of Vishnu has characters and attributes that would correspond to watery creation beast meme because Sheshanaag corresponds to creative forces and is also called the Primaeval Snake and the King of Snakes.
The Vasuki, another Snake King who lives on Shiva's neck. He is a self-aware snake who can change shape and form and was involved in a primaeval churning of ocean that brought out wonders of civilization.
Takshaka - The tribal iteration of king of snakes whose forest was burnt along with animals and his family all because the Aryans "claimed" that the forest had demons that terrorized the pious rishis.
Other than that, Snakes and Snake people Nagas are generally viewed as either negative or threatening. People pray them out of fear.
>There is a difference between Veda and Puran. They are written in different era and place. Their Sanskrit is different. Their geography is distinct.
I'm not talking about the puranas, I'm talking about the four vedas. Vishnu is described as supreme in the rg veda. It says he lives on the top of the mountain, in verse.
Shiva is described as the tawny one. His hair is tawny brown.
>Vishnu is described as supreme in the rg veda.
Vishnu is a minor deity in Rig Veda. Rig Veda is primarily devoted to Indra. Rig Veda is a ritual manual, there is no descriptive history there. If you have read it, you would know.
His prominence rises in Brahmana texts (the gist, Upanishads) of later Vedic philosophy with gaining supremacy in later Veda periods, which were composed much later and within India. He does not live on top of the mountain. He lives in the place where the soul of the departed goes to thus a spiritually high place, not the physical one.
>Shiva is described as the tawny one.
Shiva literally means "auspicious, handsome, brilliant, kind" and is an epithet which is not unique to Rudra but is used for almost all of Rig Vedic deities. It is a moniker, not a unique name. And instead of Vishnu, it is Rudra who was once called the "Supreme Sovereign of Universe."
I originally stated that the present form of Shiva is a syncretism of many local deities. That means that under the name Shiva, a great many deities are incorporated. The Himalayan ascetic hero, the Dravidian lord of animals (the great hunter) and the Munda Lord of mountains (great mountain).
The identification of being tawny is Vedic in nature. The animal skin and Linga worship are Dravidian, the Himalayan ascetic (Ladakh) is Mon in nature.
I don't see as to where is the confusion?
yes there is. There is mythology in the rg veda, and history. Its not a ritual manual in the way you are thinking. Vishnu is a minor deity in the rg veda, not in the vedic cosmology. He's a minor deity in the rg veda because the focus is on the path of yajna, hence, the deities more relevant to yajna and the spiritual path of the human aspirant are featured much more.
>He does not live on top of the mountain. He lives in the place where the soul of the departed goes to thus a spiritually high place, not the physical one.
in the rg veda he is described as roaming the peak of a mountain like a roaring lion. He's associated with the peak of a mountain, because he's associated with the zenith, the peak of the sun's journey through the sky. When the sun is high in the sky, you can see it above or "on" the peak of mountains
Theology != Historical Studies user.
Historical Studies and Linguistics works according to scientific laws and chronology. Rig Veda was written first and it does not give prominence to Vishnu. What you are implying is the result of centuries of theological development, composed as a coherent cosmology.
My original post was about the archetype, not about the wholesome mythology of HIndusim. Whatever archetype the Vedic deities held was long transformed before becoming Hinduism. It is not that hard to understand.
>roaming the peak of a mountain like a roaring lion.
Please provide me, the exact verse and the mandala. I need to read it for myself.
>associated with the zenith
>sun is high
Vedic Vishnu is a solar-class deity. He is often invoked in dual forms with other solar deities, Savitr might be the "Sun" on his own, but he is often invoked along with Indra, Vishnu, Mitra and even Agni. Does that mean everyone is the sun?
The Rig Vedic meters have a very peculiar penchant for the use of strong simile and metaphor. If you take it literally every time, mythology won't make any sense. You cannot judge the older mythology with the new definition that we have today.
>Historical Studies and Linguistics works according to scientific laws and chronology. Rig Veda was written first and it does not give prominence to Vishnu. What you are implying is the result of centuries of theological development, composed as a coherent cosmology.
Everything I've said re vishnu and the rg veda is stated explicitly in the rg veda. It talks pretty plainly about the path of the sun and how the different solar deities represent aspects of the sun and its path.
>Vedic Vishnu is a solar-class deity. He is often invoked in dual forms with other solar deities, Savitr might be the "Sun" on his own, but he is often invoked along with Indra, Vishnu, Mitra and even Agni. Does that mean everyone is the sun?
There's multiple solar deities, that represent aspects of the sun. Mitra is one of them, agni is associated with the sun because he is the fire/energy/force deity but isnt part of the class of solar deities.
>. Does that mean everyone is the sun?
The deities in the rg veda tend to flow into one and other and are often identified with one and other. For example agni and rudra are identified with one and other, agni, indra and savitri/surya are identified with one and other in a solar trinity. Agni being fire, indra lightening and savitri the sun.
>The Rig Vedic meters have a very peculiar penchant for the use of strong simile and metaphor. If you take it literally every time, mythology won't make any sense.
I agree, I don't take rg veda literally as some crude form of nature worship, its clearly metaphorical for spiritual and psychological realities and not just materialistic nature worship
We are speaking in circles. I am stating the exact same thing as you are.
>I don't take rg veda literally as some crude form of nature worship, its clearly metaphorical for spiritual and psychological realities and not just materialistic nature worship.
Why then are we discussing even? My understanding was that this was Veeky Forums A place to discuss history, linguistics and archaeology; the sciences; but what you want to do is Theology.
Two separate topics. Two incompatible topics.
If you want to discuss theology then I am afraid, we won't agree ever.
>Dravidian
>Vedic
Sounds like names of JRPG ethnicities.
But what if everything is sacred in your belief system and there is no profane?
Reminds me of the old saying
"The first priest was a clever man that met a gullible fool."
It was mentioned early by who I presume is the Munda user that in early Sumerian theology gods were far more akin to mortals than other cultures that would adopt elements of their beliefs. Things like a primordial storm god having the abilities of a storm and the the power to summon a storm but neither being a storm himself or being responsible for all storms. This hits that very common line the pops up where the deity is either the force itself or the force is his greatest creation/dominion of power (i.E the Munda user's faith where the sun is just one of the deities creations that symbolizes it's power compared to Helios where the titan is literally the sun)
In the Sumerian case it's the dominion of power, but uniquely the force of nature can exist freely without the god. In relation of your quote, it makes me wonder that in the context of the Sumerians there was a slightly different origin to the formation of deities than let's say their akkadian neighbors.
What if in the case of Sumerians, the first priests were just the right mix of healer and ego stroking warrior? Ancient medicine men always have that duel factor of healer/destroyer and all around bullshitters of other people. They latch on to an array of spiritual powers and run with it even though what they preach could very blatantly be made up on the spot it doesn't matter because ancient people were only so educated. We are all educated enough where we perhaps overthink the mindset of ancient people. I'm trying to ask questions to seek support for an environmental factor because I want to understand the possible origin of religion and nature is pretty much our world, but I am perhaps overestimating the thought process of ancient people. Munda user, who clearly is far more educated in mythology gave the simple answer that people were basically lazy and stole ideas to the point where storm gods were always chief deity regardless of the environment of their people (I.E Slavs and Perun). Cont.
Check out ethnoecology dawg
cont.
Perhaps the Sumerians were so simple in a theological mindset that they couldn't even anthropomorphize natural forces. Instead, they began with mystics and medicine men who claimed they had some sort of dominion over nature itself, reinforced by the root of all superstition. Rather than doing some ritual to appease the force, they perhaps believed that the ritual itself was controlling a force. That mindset would not last very long, because while it's a simpler train of thought than anthropomorphize a force as a sentient being, if it fails to work then the mystics power would swiftly be disproven. When you make the force a person, you make it capable of disagreeing with you which is probably why such a concept of humans controlling weather directly wouldn't last long in any culture.
But if it did and was prominent for a bit, it would have a memetic effect on the concept deity. So perhaps the reason Sumerian gods were so human like was because they were modeled after the very human mystic, perhaps even actual priestly kings or other prominent people in their society. The mystic would have power of a force but not the force itself, later being shown as a god who had the same abilities until ultimately other cultural influence made them become the forces in of themselves.
>Sounds like names of JRPG
Play Asura's Wrath. It mixes all of the Indo-European Pantheon+Buddhism+Hinduism Cosmogeny into a single storyline. While it is not a faithful adaption, themes and names are very close to their characters.
Vedic - Those who followed Vedas and its doctrines. Speakers of a southern family of Indo-European languages clubbed as Indo-Iranian languages. E.g Sanskrit, Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali, Gujrati etc, etc. in India, and Persian in Iran.
Dravidian - A Vedic term (that is, used in Veda for Southern people) "given" to one of the native people of India, predominantly spread in the Southern India, speakers of languages closely related to each other. E.g Tamil, Kurukh, Gondi
Wasn't Enlil's brothers actual domain a mythical ocean that represented water aquifers and not a literal ocean?
Profane, from what I understand; even you can see in your plain observation perhaps isn't chosen voluntarily.
For example, human excrement. It stinks, it is unappealing to look at and has a very repulsive texture. It is biologically designed to evoke an involuntary and obnoxious reaction around it so as to keep us from potential danger. Because it could be associated with danger people might have started to see it as something profane.
Sex was a part of many religion but Abrahamic faith made it profane.
We as human do not like "everything"; there will always be things that we would find "undesirable" thus "profane".
Very insightful analysis user. Quite pleasant reading. The previous Munda user. here. Thank you.
I think you are in the right direction to propose that perhaps earlier cultures had medicine men who were also believed to be mystics. And that it could have been a belief that mystical medicine men could have power over nature (they could be just more observant of the natural phenomenon than others - a fact that priests used to oral transmit directions and hide knowledge, would fit).
The oral mythology of my culture also speaks of the Old magical group of men who could control nature and was known as "De^(n)vra^(n)" [vowels are often nasalized in Munda languages]. They were also medicine men. Most of the time they and their art were feared, more than respected. With the advent of interaction with other societies, their numbers diminished and now they or their cult is barely spoken of If someone does, they don't talk about it.
There is one more layer to Sumerian mythology. I think it will entice you.
There are three layers of mythology associated with Enki. The overwhelming association with aquifers is a late Sumerian development (much after the establishment of Eridu and a mythical place called Dilmun/Tilmun [scholars believe it is Bahrain] and association with a mythical ocean comes from the Babylonian propaganda piece Enûma Elish which blow out old mythologies out of proportions and rips a new one.
But there is an older layer of ancient Sumerian myth where Enki is not yet named Enki and Gulf of Arabia is pretty much his domain.
Ooo. Nice. Never had the chance to pursue it before. Thanks for reminding me again.
So in terms of inspiration it goes Enil of Mesopotamia inspired the Phoenician storm deity which inspired Zeus, Odin, Parun and possibly Indra?
Which Sumerian layer actually inspired the Canaanites?
I would actually refrain from using the term 'inspiration' and coming to the conclusion that only Enlil could be the archetype for the later stages of Pantheons in around the middle-east and Mediterranean.
In his Sumerian incarnation, Enlil is literally the lord of wind (En = generic term for lord and Lil = wind/air/atmospheric space). He is a lord commander of both man and divine beings, gods and angels BUT he too is subservient to Anu, the allfather and skyfather. Enlil displays very specific traits which would not fit in the later pantheon heads. Instead, his sons Ninurta, Nergal, etc would be more astute.
The Pantheon is very complex with inter-relationships, shared responsibilities, usurped domains and realms, and victory and defeat.
For example, Zeus qualifies as the lord above all but he is an Olympian. He is Enlil and Ninurta combined. His father, the Titan Cronos is more like Anu. This could be well attributed to the fact that the Phoenician Pantheon is the source of those retcons from original Akkadian which in turn were compiled a thousand years after the peak of Sumeria. Historians, however, agree that changes are gradual, not abrupt (excluding cases like Marduk's Babylon).
This thread is deviating from the actual discussion and more into the mythology of Middle-eastern past. If you would like, we can create a separate thread to properly discuss this?
So what books can i learn more about sumerians / veda/hindus and most of these religions here?
The Roots of Hinduism: Early Aryans and the Indus Valley Civilization.
global.oup.com
It is a good book with updated archaeological data and arguments from the academia. It's a good start as it provides and all round idea about the religion and history, before you jump into research papers.
I follow research papers on Sumerian linguistics directly, haven't given attention to any compiled book per say.
However, you can go to the digital library here:
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk
>This thread is deviating from it's original topic
This is true, but at least it's getting interesting discussion. Veeky Forums is a very sparse board because it competes with Veeky Forums and /pol/. I think the reason I'm interested in the cultural meme effect is for one, it challenged and almost completely wrecked my hypothesis on the level in which the environment affects deities. I was so certain that the reason Poseidon was so important to Greeks was because of their precious Mediterranean and that cultures who didn't rely on the ocean directly had no deity of importance in relation to it.
But Alas, Poseidon and Eniki are similar and the later may have been responsible for the former.
Though with you comment on the Titans being related to the Taurus mountains makes me wonder how Oceanus fits in with the concept.
Keep in mind the Greeks have a TON of sea/river deities. I wouldn't be surprised if they had more than average, if such a thing can be quantified.
>I am schizophrenic please listen to me.
Indeed, most being children of Oceanus. However they're like the frost giants. They're a part of the lands mythos but allocated away from the central divinity and master of the cosmic principles
I don't have a scope of how much your average Greek would go venerate a lake god or a river god but from what I recall these entities were always below the Olympians in terms of worship.
Read a book dummy.
MAPS
OF
>My schizophrenia was caused by this book. Now you read it!
No thanks, I like my sanity.
MEANING
> Veeky Forums is a very sparse board because it competes with Veeky Forums and /pol/
Hmmm. I have noticed that too. I suggested for a new thread with concern for you (OP) actually. I was under the impression that you were more interested in the inter-relationship of nature-human-philosophy-cause-effect culture. But now I get it.
>certain that the reason Poseidon was so important to Greeks was because of their precious Mediterranean and that cultures who didn't rely on the ocean directly had no deity of importance in relation to it.
You are most probably correct in the assumption that Sea and thus Greek water-deities had very important place in their cultural and survival awareness. The smaller, personal kind of mythology which pertains to sea and survival might be unique to Greeks. But yes,
>Alas, Poseidon and Eniki are similar and the later may have been responsible for the former.
The archetype of the core character is transmitted.
>Though with you comment on the Titans being related to the Taurus mountains makes me wonder how Oceanus fits in with the concept.
The Greek Theogony and Titanomachy is very detailed and refined, to the point of freshly minted type mythology in contrast to the Mesopotamian mess. Oceanos is a primaeval archetype and Poseidon is the new version.
Oceanos does have a counterpart from the primaeval generation - Apsu. In Babylonian Enuma Elish, he is the first deity to die. I will look into the connection once more. I think it was either Berossos who first informed of the migration of the Gods. Also together with Taurus, mountains in Lebanon and Atlas range are all sources of divine habitat. They are flanked by Oceans.
Another interesting idea is Hyperion and Helios. Hyperion is the "Old Sun" who gets defeated in the Titanomachy and succeeded by the "New Sun" Helios.
I can't think of a natural phenomenon to explain the idea of one sun succeeding another. It has also shown up in mesoamerican mythology, like 4 different times.
That's a disadvantage that will be exploited.
Nice man, hardcopy!!! Much respect. I envy you. I lost two beautiful books, one to termites and one to a careless "friend".
Anywho, author of the book, please?
>I can't think of a natural phenomenon to explain the idea of one sun succeeding another.
We think alike. :-)
It had always tormented me as to why Pantheons had Gods that needed replacement. It was the main reason I was attracted to Mesopotamian Mythology in the first place.
Patricide, War of generations of God, Creation of mankind but not the creator. These inconsistent facts are not merely explained by Primitive social structures and observation of anything natural. Mesoamerican Pantheons were of civilizations so I can accept some kind of inspiration but there are cases of insular tribal cultures, completely cut-off and they have these stories as well.
We have stories of seven suns and two consecutive moons (the moon that we have today is not venerated, because, it a faux moon, original one departed) Then one version with the sun basically chasing the moon. I have basically made my elders scream at me for basically interrogating them to annoyance but even they cannot explain as to what was the natural cause that led to such outrageous stories.
"When the Gods were Born", Carolina Lopez-Ruiz. Quite a good book. These photos are actually old ones from when I had it from my uni library, I just knew I'd want to references these tables again.
Here's some more charts, last two from "Indo-European Law and Myth".
imgur.com
I just thought of something although it's a huge stretch.
en.wikipedia.org
A significantly bright super nova would freak a lot of ancient people out because it may have been the second brightest thing in the sky relative to the sun.
For a brief moment in time "two suns" could have been visible. When the nova faded only our sun would be left, which might have created the solar replacement concept.
I get jumpy when I see people with similar interests. :-) After I wrote that, I figured out the book. But even then, thank you. :-)
Genealogy tables and Comparative analysis are quite fun to work with, isn't it? If you are interested in the genealogical tables, I would suggest the Grand Assembly of Anunnaki from "Genesis of the Grail Kings" by Laurence Gardner (while his alternative form of work might scare mainstreamers, I find that his table is very helpful of being at one place and is legit capable in collecting the mess that Mesopotamian Mythology is.)
>Kepler's_Supernova
I like where you are going with it. It could indeed have a significant effect on a primitive, nascent civilization. Kepler's Supernova was visible for three weeks, it says.
If in distant past had there been a nova explosion visible for a month minimum, they could actually believe it as a fight between two Suns. Close analysis over the core nature of two generations of deities might actually yield results! Very interesting concept indeed.
Here another one, what if, the ancients were witness to the catastrophic breaking of natural dams in and about the last Ice age. I have read somewhere that Mediterranean used to be a closed sea and that rising sea level broke through the place now called Gibralter and raised Mediterranean quite rapidly. It was also found that Gulf of Arabia was once low-tidal lagoon/marshland but was inundated once the global sea level rose. Titanomachy of Oceans?
>titanomachy of the ocean?
One thing that was special about Oceanus if I recall correctly is that he didn't participate in the titanomarchy and was spared like Themus. Outside of fathering many oceanids that Poisdon slept with he never seemed to interact much with the greek world and was later used to refer to oceans beyond the Mediterranean
This all could be later stuff though and perhaps the original titanomarchy had all the titan involved and replaced.
Yeah, you are right. I was thinking in terms of the original hypothesis that observation from nature had influences on myths. But it is indeed correct that historical mythos agreed that Oceanus didn't participate in Titanomachy.
And with that, I also recalled something from the Akkadian, Babylonian and Hittite mythology is that Enki did not participate in the war of gods. He is the creator of mankind, he warns Ziudsudra, he gifts mankind, aids heroes but he himself never participate in war.
Marduk is defined as being Ea's (Babylonian Version of Enki) firstborn and he is in direct conflict with Enlil's progeny Ninurta, Teshub and Nergal. Quite fascinating that Nergal is generally identified as Ea's son but before the beginning of war, he is speaking against his brothers and later he is identified as being Enlil's son (It is a confusing mess). Enki's warlike history is always of the distant past when the progenies are either not present in the narration or not born yet.
After the war, Ninurta, Teshub, Nergal etc, all get fame and seat of power and dominion - Ninurta get dominion of stormy hunter god, Teshub the stormy rain god, Nergal gets the underworld and Marduk is banished. [Note that this is a prehistory and Marduk is not yet called Marduk but Asarluhhi]/ It was his revenge in setting the Babylon and thus the propaganda piece Enuma Elish where he is the winner.
One wonders as to what was going through the minds of cultures that followed these Gods.
>YHWH is a storm deity like his counterparts
evidence pls
>But scholars do agree that Canaanite El, is pretty much what Bible calls El Elyon i.e. The Most High.
Who? No where in the Ugaritic corpus is there any remote hint of El being Elyon.
Please don't be the Misha Stele autist.
>Please don't be the Misha Stele autist.
Nah, I'm not, I haven't been on Veeky Forums in a while. But I still want evidence
>Storm Deity
Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story, Bert Dicou
Monotheism and Yahweh's Appropriation of Baal, James S. Anderson
> Identity of Yahweh
Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? Lester Grabbe
What about Buddhism?
>Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story
Does it hypothesize that Qos is YHWH and YHWH is Qos?
>Monotheism and Yahweh's Appropriation of Baal, James S. Anderson
Good recommendation for more in depth material on the issue though I don't have the money at the moment to buy it. I've already read tons of material similar to this.
>Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? Lester Grabbe
Which chapter? I more into early YHWH material and folk-like material, the further development in the Kingdoms is less of an importance to me.
>But scholars do agree that Canaanite El, is pretty much what Bible calls El Elyon i.e. The Most High.
>Who? Nowhere in the Ugaritic corpus is there any remote hint of El being Elyon?
Not in the actual syncretism but in borrowing of character. Canaanite El and Biblical El Elyon have similar calm, benevolent and gifting nature.
Papers by Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou and the Thesis -
Biblical distortions of historical realities: a study with particular reference to King Manasseh and child sacrifice.
The Ugaritic Corpus doesn't have exact cognate for Elyon. But Sefire Steles mentions ['l w 'lyn] in either a dualistic conception or as an epithetical compound (By Ugaritic rule).
>Rudra is transformed into Shiva, a hunter-like God who wear Cheetah skin and live high in mountains
What about pre Vedic pashupati from Ivc?
Hey all. I'm that one guy who studied sumerian on here.
Basically, there's a guy I constantly harp on about called Throkild Jacobsen who was a fucking genius and he is good for this.
huh, well done good explanation. Jacobsen extended this into an evolution of gods from the earliest animal form to the human personifcation. He noted that in a lot of myths, the human god would actually overcome the original animal and mystically gain his powers - the Bull in Gilgamesh is an example, though it's atrophied in the myth. Lugalbanda is another.
Sumerians had a concept known as the Me which were seen as physical objects - Inanna literally binds them to her feet and ankles. These are literally the powers of a god - in Inanna in the Underworld she is gradually stripped of her clothes and so loses her powers.
I should also point out that their gods, like thos of the vikings, had gods above them. In the sumerian case it was An, who was the celestial god and highly remote from usual events and, uindeed, from the other gods. Enlil also plays this role later.
will answer these in next post.