Me:
>>They're after me!! Who said that?! Nevermind, it was just me >>throwing my
>>voice again. Hehehe. I hate when I scare myself like
>>that. Um, now what were we talking about again?...
Omar:
>The red colour of triumphant Roman generals perhaps? :-)
Ah, yes indeed, my good sir/madam/he-she... From the last incident with Max
Dashu I learned that I shouldn't assume one's sex. I may interchangeably
call you a sir or madam. Hope you don't mind :)
Alright. I've listened, pondered and weighed your arguements. Now, first,
war is not an original characteristic of Mars, no. Second, the god known as
Mars is not to be viewed as the same as the planet Mars. Mars the god only
later was associated with Greek Ares and war. It is believed that he was
once a deity associated with harvest (thus, a chthonic deity). However, Mars
became a war god nonetheless with all the trimmings associated with the
warrior caste and the planet Mars to which he was associated has a ruddy hue
as seen with the naked eye from my balcony. The red colour of the generals
here could hardly represent the "light of Jupiter" since Jupiter is quite
bright and "white" in the sky, quite unlike the red planet Mars.
We see the same association of heroic warriors with "red" in the Indian
"varna" caste system which is thought to be very ancient (white for
brahmans, red for kshatriyas, brown for vaishnas and black for shudras). The
shudras (servants) are an addition to the system with the brahmans
(priests), kshatriyas (warriors) and vaishnas (cultivators) being most
original. The kshatriyas are of interest to this association of red and
warriors, of course.
A tripartite system of sky-earth-underworld can very easily erode into a
bipartite one of sky-earth, especially if there are local traditions where
the latter is believed. The thin line between the region on the surface of
the earth (middleworld) and that inside the earth (underworld) can be
blurred with ease. Of course, the reverse is true also. A bipartite
world-view can end up tripartite.
However, it's unlikely that the IE-speaking population had a bipartite
world-view when there exists so much evidence throughout IE cultures that
show a three-fold division of the cosmos. The Indians may have adopted some
bipartite traits from local traditions where this simple two-fold division
into sky and earth was common. Mind you, I think this two-fold division
underlies the Sumerian mythology just to the west. Regardless, Hinduism
still has an underworld and tripartition in many forms ("trivikrama", the
Brahma-Vishu-Shiva triad, etc) is rampant within the belief system.
Oh, and before I forget. I'd like to briefly mention that the order that the
functions are listed in is quite irrelevant in terms of "rank" since none of
the three functions are more superior than the other two. The order however
is important in terms of understanding IE world-view which is why I put the
commoner caste as second (with the middleworld) and the warrior caste at the
bottom (with the underworld). That's all.
>Not for Hindus however, who wrote in the Rig Veda: "From
>his navel arose the air; from his head the heaven evolved; from his >feet
>the earth; the [four] directions from his ear. Thus, they >fashioned the
>worlds" (talking about Purusha; excuse me the lack of >line numbers).
>Being Hindu texts quite old enough, there are no signs of the
>underworld here.
Ugh, Hinduism does have an underworld! You might want to comment on the Rig
Veda's mention of "seas" in the beginning of creation... that is, in the
"pre-Parusha" years when the middleworld (being a seperate creation brought
about by Parusha) didn't exist yet. Afterall, his feet have to sit in
somethin' :P
You should also comment on:
"To the sun let your eyes go,
to the wind your life-breath.
By the good deeds you have done,
go to the heaven and then come back again
to live on the earth or take to the waters
if you are comfortable with it.
Remain in the herbs with
the bodies you intend to take."
(Rig Veda X.16.3)
Hmm. First "heaven", then "earth", then something about taking to the
"waters". Heaven, earth, waters... heaven, earth, waters... (I start
pointing at my screen and counting)... One, two, three... You know, I could
be wrong but it kinda looks like tripartition of cosmos.
I also enjoy this part in the Rig Veda:
His mouth was the Brahman, his arms were the Rajanaya,
his thighs the Vaisya; from his feet the Sudra [caste]
was born.
Boy, that Purusha giant is so "IE", huh? (cf. Norse Ymir). So is that varna
thing. Gee, I wonder why the Rajanaya (kshatriyas) would be born from
Purusha's arms. Perhaps the Rajanaya are prone to taking up arms. Perhaps
arms are a sign of strength. Perhaps they have something to do with a
warrior caste which is naturally associated with physical strength, hmmm?
Warriors need meaty arms to fight all those nasty meanies. Funny too 'cuz
the kshatriyas are associated with red, which surely represents in no way
the IE warrior function, eh. :P
>Norse Hel was believed to have her face half black, half
>white. As you spoke above about common sense, it tells me that earth >is
>generally black, so my common sense tries to associate it with >what
>underground is. In addition to this, black animals were >sacrificed to
>Greek Hades, who was called sometimes "Chthonic Zeus" >too (perhaps a link
>with Eleusinian mysteries).
But these factoids are of little irrelevance to IE mythos if these features
cannot be seen across the spectrum of IE mythologies. Are black animals
sacrificed to an underworld figure elsewhere? How geographically broad is
this practice across IE cultures? Etc, etc. Tripartition _is_ demonstrable
across IE cultures.
> I don't agree with your kind of reasoning here. Following
>your way, I may say that as cemeteries are used to burying people, >and
>green meadows and trees with green leaves are found there [...]
Yes, yes, but focus. IE speaking peoples (we presume they are IE) clearly
use red ochre in burials. This isn't open to interpretation. Red ochre _was_
important to the ceremony unlike green trees, meadows, yadayadyada. If red
ochre doesn't involve the underworld in this context, what DOES it
represent?
And, you don't need to lecture me on multiple-meanings to colours. According
to one of the guys in Eiffel 65, there was confusion in various countries
concerning their techno song entitled "Blue". Apparently, "blue" means
"homosexual" to Russians but "drunk" to Germans while "sad" to the
anglophones like me. The band members themselves however simply meant it as
a song about being oneself. There are certainly dual or triple meanings to
colours but this is exactly something I'm proposing here afterall! I said
for instance that "red" symbolizes the underworld as well as the warrior
caste.
> Yes, but there is a point of view that stands, according to
>the cake that was offered to him by the Cumaean sibyl, that the >former
>Kerberus was a snake, not a dog. Have cakes something to do >with
>Trophonius' cult?
Erh, why would you give a cake to a snake? Do snakes eat cakes? I know they
eat mice. Wouldn't it make better sense to feed a mouse to a snake? Dogs
like cakes. Why not give a hungry hell-hound a cake? It beats being eaten
for eternity, I'll say. Now, while it might be tempting to blame the
Egyptians on this soul-eating monster story, we can't blame the Egyptians
for everything. It certainly doesn't explain Norse Garmr which fits the same
general pattern of an IE canine guarding the dead. It's true that "Ares is a
warrior and he is not responsible for what predators do with slain men" but
it's nonetheless his close association with death and wolves, animals that
relate to the IE underworld, that's fishy for a supposedly purely chthonic
deity as you portray him to be.
>Relating to the main Underworld features, there is a great confusion
>among the first writers relating to the number of infernal rivers, >for
>example: Hesiod and Homer only talk about the Styx, but Pindar >only knows
>the Aqueront and the Styx. The ferryman Charon seems to be >known only
>since the V Century B. C [...]
While the underworld concept in general appears to be IE, ferrymen and a set
number of rivers within it is not. This is nothing strange. There are
certain things developed within the concept and others not. This ain't no
big Eleusinian mystery, folks. Plus, if we get down to the nitty gritty, we
could blame every ounce of IE tales on the Egyptians but this would be
absurd reasoning. It's more complex than that, surely.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com