A conversation with David Whitehead of Truth Warrior!

Above is a video of a recent conversation with David Whitehead of Truth Warrior.

In it, we discuss a wide range of topics, including Star Myths in general and my most recent book, Star Myths of the World, and how to interpret them: Volume One.

We also explore the subject of paradigms in general, the difficulty of changing one's paradigm, and the difficulty of convincing someone else to consider a new paradigm. 

Some of these issues are discussed as well in my recent post entitled "The nine-dot puzzle and connecting 'outlying dots'." We discussed the metaphor of the "nine-dot puzzle" a little bit during this interview as well, as it relates the filters we use to view the "big picture" of this material-spiritual universe in which we find ourselves, and our place and purpose in it -- and also to more specific questions and models, such as our understanding of the shape of our planet and the reason that we see the sun, moon, planets and stars do the things that we see them do.

Having been somewhat taken aback by some particularly aggressive and acrimonious advocates of the "flat earth theory" (whether genuine advocates or not is difficult to know), David was very positive about my recent article entitled "The invisible kraken: Evidence that the earth is not flat," and wanted to spend part of our conversation discussing the fairly recent proliferation of commentary online trying to steer nearly every discussion towards this particular subject of the shape of our planet.

While I don't want to spend much time debating this particular subject any further (that article linkedin the previous paragraph presents what I believe are fifteen or so very solid reasons to conclude that we live on a spherical earth which is rotating on its axis once per day and which is orbiting the sun in a solar system which also includes other planets orbiting the same sun), I did agree that it might be worth spending just a few minutes discussing the recent sudden desire on the part of some aggressive web comment-posters to drag every conversation over to this subject (deliberately derailing productive discourse, in many cases).

We discuss the very important distinction between honest critical examination of alternative possibilities, and sheer sophistry which merely delights in advancing arguments that the sophist does not believe, as a form of showmanship or even deceit, not in the pursuit of truth.

Interestingly enough, the day after David Whitehead and I recorded that conversation, an articlecame to my attention (published on December 09, 2015) which contained a screenshot of the website of a certain US government agency,  a website which was discussing a manual written back in the 1940s, and which contained advice for deliberately derailing and disrupting productive activity and turning the situation into "a dysfunctional mess" -- all while appearing to be trying to be helpful and even "reasonable." 

Some of the advice from that 1940s manual describing how to undermine productive activity while still appearing to be helpful and reasonable and friendly to the very people one is trying to undermine includes suggestions such as:

• "Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible."
• "Talk as frequently as possible and at great length."
• "Haggle over precise wordings."
• "Be 'reasonable' and urge your fellow conferees to be 'reasonable' [. . .]."

The website in question noted that, although these tactics were described in a 1940s-era manual on disrupting while appearing to be helpful, they remain "surprisingly relevant" to this day -- and demonstrate just "how easily productivity and order can be undermined."

The entire debate over the shape of our planet has somehow turned into a contentious subject, and one I would rather avoid. I personally do not believe there is enough evidence to warrant any real debate on the subject: there is abundant evidence (some of it discussed in my above-linked article) which supports the paradigm of a spherical earth, rotating on its axis, and orbiting the sun. Some of this evidence also appears to be very difficult to satisfactorily explain using the hypothetical mental exercise of a non-spherical earth.

There is also some reason to suspect that at least some of those aggressively trying to steer virtually every conversation in this direction are doing so in order to turn things into a "dysfunctional mess" among those engaged in offering alternative sources of analysis to those presented in conventional media.

There is a difference between honest critical examination of the evidence and of alternative theories that can explain the evidence, and sheer sophistry which does not actually propose arguments in order to try to explain evidence but rather in order to either show off, play games, or even deliberately derail, deceive, or disrupt.

It is too bad that this subject even needs to be addressed. However, for those who have gotten caught up in this disruptive topic, I hope that the above conversation will be helpful. 

My advice for anyone still honestly struggling with this issue would be to read through the evidence I offer in the above-linked article, realize that there is a lot more evidence out there which also points to a spherical earth rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun, and realize that there are some reasons to believe that at least some of the most aggressive participants in this debate might be participating simply for the purpose of creating "a dysfunctional mess."

After that, I would recommend ignoring further debate on this subject of "flat earth theories" altogether, which is what I intend to do myself.

The nine-dot puzzle and connecting "outlying dots"

image: Wikimedia commons, with dots added (link to original).

The "nine-dots puzzle" is often presented as an exercise in "thinking outside the box," and it most certainly is that.

But it is also an excellent metaphor for the process we undergo as we deal with the data life presents to us and as we attempt to find paradigms which help us to understand that data. 

The puzzle is a thought-exercise in which nine dots are arranged in three rows of three (or three columns of three, whichever way you choose to look at it), similar to the arrangement of a "tic-tac-toe" pattern. The illustration above shows the arrangement for the puzzle.

The goal of the game is to try to connect all nine of the dots, using only four straight lines, without picking your pencil (or pen) up off of the paper (or writing surface):

If you have never had the opportunity to wrestle with this particular puzzle, and would like to try it for yourself without reading any discussion that might give away the solution and thus spoil the fun of the game, please stop reading now and come back later!

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Readers who are familiar with the possible solutions will know that in order to connect all nine of the dots with only four straight and connected lines, you have to be able to "think outside the box" and draw the lines beyond the boundary of the implied square that the dots make by their arrangement. 

Obviously, there is nothing in the rules of the puzzle as stated which forces you to draw the lines within the borders of the square created by the outer dots. That invisible boundary is only "self-imposed" -- and yet it will prevent you from finding the solution until you can see that you don't need to stay within the "mental cage" that we unthinkingly impose on ourselves when presented with this puzzle for the first time.

So, the nine-dots puzzle is an excellent illustration of that tendency, and of the need for examining our own "self-imposed barriers" in other situations in our lives -- situations that may involve more data-points than just nine dots arranged on a page.

But I believe the nine-dots puzzle can also provide an additional, related illustration of the way we tend to impose "paradigms" or "frameworks" or "filters" through which we view the myriad data-points or "dots" which we find in the world around us during our journey through this incarnate life. In many ways, we do this out of necessity, in order to be able to make sense of things, beginning when we are very small and progressively altering our paradigm or framework as we grow up and encounter new data-points or see new ways of connecting ideas or explaining events.

The question that this puzzle illustrates very well, in my opinion, is the question of "What do you do, when you find that the paradigm you are using leaves out important dots?"

This is the question that is worked out in most of the mystery stories and "CSI television shows" that we enjoy, going back to the formula used by Arthur Conan Doyle in the Sherlock Holmes stories (or in the Scooby Doo television series from the late 1960s and early 1970s, or in the pioneering mystery stories written by Edgar Allan Poe in the first half of the nineteenth century).

In those stories, "the authorities" usually have a theory or thesis that they are using to explain the evidence or clues that they have found -- a paradigm or framework with which they are "connecting all the dots," so to speak. Then, the outsider in the story (such as Sherlock Holmes, or Scooby and the gang) comes into the picture and discovers a few more "dots" which the solution offered by the authorities leaves out. 

Above: Four lines which attempt to connect all the dots -- but Sherlock Holmes (or Shaggy and Scooby) might ask, "What about these two dots over here?"

Through the course of the investigation, a new outline or framework to connect all the dots emerges, leading to a new way of understanding the situation (and often revealing that the culprit was someone quite different from the person implicated in the original storyline accepted or promoted by the authorities). 

I think this is a very helpful metaphor which is applicable in many different situations -- from the way we choose to understand important events in history, to the way we interpret the "big questions" regarding the meaning of life and our purpose here in this material world.

By virtue of the fact that this material-spiritual universe in which we find ourselves contains far more than "nine dots" for us to try to understand, there are an almost-infinite variety of paradigms or frameworks or "shapes of the lines" which people adopt in order to try to make sense of the world around them.

When we find one that seems to work as an explanation, we can be very resistant to letting go of it, even if we start noticing some suspicious dots that our framework doesn't seem to include or connect very well. 

There is actually good reason for being somewhat resistant to casting aside a paradigm which we have adopted over the course of time and which seems to do a reasonably good job of explaining and connecting the dots we have encountered over the course of our life. Data-points which originally looked like "outliers" may turn out to have been illusory, or deceptive, or irrelevant for some other reason. New paradigms which someone offers and which seem to connect these new dots may in fact ignore other dots which our old framework did explain, but which the new framework asks us to forget about.

We don't want to be too careless about jettisoning one paradigm which seemed to explain the universe (or some historical event) and adopting one that radically re-draws the lines in a shape that was totally different from what we were using before. Because of this, people are usually very resistant to doing so, and with good reason.

But, as the stories of Sherlock Holmes or Scooby Doo or Edgar Allan Poe (and countless others, including many from real life) all illustrate, there are in fact times when the outlying dots are important enough to cause us to re-evaluate even our most cherished and tightly-held explanation or belief system. 

There are times when our paradigm-driven interpretation or understanding of the events that are going on in the world around us is actually deeply mistaken, and when continuing to use a mistaken paradigm or framework will actually lead to very serious negative consequences.

Although it takes a lot to let go of a framework or paradigm that we have held for a long time and which seemed to "connect all the dots" for us for many years, sometimes it is necessary. Most of us have probably had the experience of doing so at least once or twice already.

I have already explained in the past (in many interviews and in the introduction to my most-recent book) that the world-view or paradigm provided by a literal interpretation of the scriptures collected into what we today call the Bible seemed to "connect all the dots" very well for me for many years of my adult life.

However, the more evidence that I found which indicated that the stories in the Bible -- virtually from first to last -- can be shown to allegorize the features and motions of very specific constellations, the more I had to question whether the shape of the line I was using as a framework or paradigm was accurate. Eventually, I saw "enough outlying dots" that I was forced to alter my understanding of the way they all fit together.

The same sort of process can also be applied to the framework of history, or to specific historical events which have had a great impact on the direction of geopolitical events. I believe that the analogy of the "nine-dots puzzle" is very helpful in this regard, and that it can remind us to always be sensitive to the possibility that the way we are interpreting events or the relationship between data-points might be completely mistaken and in need of serious revision.

Of course, I also think that spending as much time as possible looking at the stars and identifying constellations will help anyone to become better and better at "connecting the dots"!

Star Myths of the World on Alchemy with John Gibbons!

Much gratitude and appreciation to DJ John Gibbons and the team at Alchemy for having me over for a most enjoyable conversation.

Here is the link you can follow in order to listen online, download the file for listening on a mobile device, share the podcast with others directly or through various social media platforms, subscribe to the Alchemy podcasts, and post any feedback from the show.

You may also wish to consider supporting the show using links available on the main Alchemy page -- I definitely believe that supporting independent media such as your favorite podcasters is a very valuable endeavor, enabling independent voices to bring conversations such as this one to you and to others.

I think you'll agree that John's insightful questions and familiarity with the subject led to some valuable directions and brought out some new perspectives and exchanges during our talk. 

Of course, the fact that he is an accomplished and well-known musician means that we perhaps should not be surprised at his ability to "resonate" with these profound concepts!

I hope you enjoy the show! 

----  ----  ----

Here's a link to an "interview archive" where you can also find a recording of my previous visit to Alchemy, back in September of 2014.

Below are some handy links to a few of the many subjects we touched upon during the course of our conversation:

• Index of Star Myths that I've previously analyzed on this blog, and their probable celestial correspondences.
• Constellation outlines of H. A. Rey and why they are so helpful (and important).
• The esoteric teaching methods of Mr. Miyagi in the original Karate Kid movie.
• The Bhagavad Gita, its celestial foundations, and some aspects of the profound insights it offers into our human condition in this incarnate life.
• The goddess Durga and her important message for each of us (see also here).
• The metaphor of Thomas in the New Testament and in the Gnostic texts (see discussions here, here and here).
• Why divinities can appear in an instant: the inner connection to the Infinite.
• The helpful metaphor from Dr. Darrah Westrup regarding the "unhelpful (sometimes-helpful) office assistant."
• The special wisdom available in the Lord of the Rings (I realized afterwards that I probably "conflated" two different scenes from the movies when mentioning it in this interview, meaning that I kind of blended two scenes into one by accident -- one in which Gandalf comforts Frodo in the Mines of Moria, and one in which Gandalf comforts Pippin on the walls of Gondor before the battle).
• The profound message offered by Dr. Peter Kingsley and his book, In the Dark Places of Wisdom.
• The insights into the meaning of myth offered by Plato through Socrates in the Phaedrus.

12/08/2015

Prophecy is not about the future. Prophets don't talk about the future. What they do is: they talk about the past -- which has been hidden. Things which have happened -- that have been covered over, and no longer clear. That is what the real prophets do: they speak about the past, but the past that has been forgotten. 

-- Peter Kingsley, from a talk in The Elders.

Cited here.

Welcome new visitors from Truth Frequency Radio

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

Special thanks to hosts Chris and Sheree Geo of Truth Frequency Radio for having me on their show last night, December 05, 2015.

We covered a range of topics related to the celestial foundations of the world's myths, ancient scriptures, and sacred traditions -- including some more extensive discussion than I have previously published regarding the spiritual message in the story of the inebriation of Noah, pictured above in a painting (oil on canvas) from the early 1600s by Carlo Saraceni (1579 - 1620).

We also went into some extended discussion of the importance of Thomas in the New Testament texts and in Gnostic tradition.

This interview is currently available for online listening or downloading at this link, and for subscribers to their show it will be available for listening or downloading in their show archives indefinitely.

I believe that for all other listeners, it will be available for listening or downloading only so long as it is the most recent interview, after which it enters the archives.

The part of the show containing my conversation with Chris and Sheree begins at about -145:00 (that's "minus one hundred forty-five minutes") on the embedded play bar found at the link above, which looks like this (you can click on this image to go there as well):

To navigate around to different points in time on the show you can simply click anywhere along that blue line with the high-voltage corona discharge resembling a streamer arc between the spark gap of a Tesla coil(which is a form of radio frequency oscillator, and hence highly appropriate for a show entitled "Truth Frequency").

You can also pause the playback at any time by clicking on the triangle inside the blue circle on the left of the play bar, which starts and stops the audio.

Prior to that -104:00 mark in the show, Chris and Sheree discuss various topics of their own. Of course, I don't necessarily agree with everything that anyone else on earth might say, or everything that might be said in that part of the show, but it should be obvious that none of us really ever agrees with anyone else on every single topic, and I believe that we are all here trying to figure out the complex set of data that we encounter as best we can -- I myself have had to change the entire paradigm through which I view the world on more than one occasion, based on new information that I encountered (my first published book, in fact, was written while I still believed that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament were intended to be taken literally, which I obviously no longer see as consistent with the overwhelming evidence in the stars).

I'm personally not comfortable with frequent references to a "New World Order," and suspect that the "Old World Order" might in fact be much more of a concern and a subject which requires careful examination and consideration. 

I also do not believe by any means that everyone in the police is corrupt, which appears to be implied in one of statements in an ad during a break. I actually believe that police forces and militaries are necessary, but I absolutely agree that they can be misused and also deceived (the metaphor of the orangutans and the gorillas in the extremely important original Planet of the Apes film from 1968 is very helpful in this regard, in my opinion -- see additional discussion here).

However, I most definitely agree with the sentiment that Chris expresses at around -108:00 in the portion of the show before I came online, in which he says: 

But the only way to overcome, I should say, is to realize the power that we have -- and to realize the power of unity, as a human species. You know, forget about all of the labels; forget about all of the religions -- forget about everything else, and just start seeing each other for just . . . human beings. And I guarantee you -- they won't be able to bring in a New World Order, because we won't be controlled at that point.

Chris and Sheree were very gracious hosts and I am very grateful to them for inviting me onto the show and allowing me to discuss a subject which I believe to be extremely important to all of the above subjects. They offered some of their own very insightful perspectives during our two hours that led the conversation in what I hope you will agree were some interesting and fruitful directions.

I have not had the opportunity to talk with them before but I think it is clear that they are exploring important questions regarding human consciousness, and seeking to elevate awareness and consciousness through their insights and their work -- a cause that I think we can all agree to be of the utmost importance.

The show ended just as I was getting ready to thank them for having me on to their program -- so, in case it was cut off by the closing music, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Chris and Sheree for having me on to Truth Frequency Radio.

_/\_

Below is a list of links to things that I have previously written about some of the subjects that we touched on during the conversation (and, as mentioned above, we went a little deeper into some of these subjects than I have previously, during one or two parts of the interview):

• Index of Star Myths and their celestial correspondences.
• Constellation outlines published by H. A. Rey and why they are so important (and helpful).
• The esoteric teaching methods of Mr. Miyagi in the original Karate Kid movie.
• The celestial foundations of the story of Noah and his three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
• The celestial and zodiacal aspects of the story of the Crossing of the Red Sea.
• More on the "astro-theology" interpretation of the critical figure of Moses, who is related to some extremely central metaphors connected to the celestial figures of Scorpio, Cancer the Crab, the shining column of the Milky Way galaxy, the raising of the Djed column, and the concept of kundalini.
• The metaphor of Thomas in the New Testament and in the Gnostic texts (see discussions here, here and here).
• The Nag Hammadi texts that were buried for centuries at the base of a cliff near a bend in the river Nile in Egypt.
• The evidence that the world's star myths are expressing a view of reality that is essentially shamanic (or that has been labeled as "shamanic" because this view has survived in shamanic cultures, but can actually be shown to be present and active in virtually all the ancient wisdom of humanity).
• The assertion that the Bible itself contains abundant evidence of this same "shamanic worldview."
• The evidence that the person we call Paul may have been expressing a view which can be broadly categorized as both Gnostic and essentially shamanic in nature.
• The evidence that human beings are actually designed to have an awareness of and an internal connection to the invisible, infinite realm -- and that there are an extremely wide variety of techniques and methods for engaging this ability.
• The Bhagavad Gita, its celestial foundations, and some aspects of its important insights into life in this incarnate state.
• The theme of blessing and not cursing, found running across and through so many of the ancient traditions of humanity.

Welcome to all new friends who found this page through the Truth Frequency Radio broadcast or website!

Namaste.

Yudhistira and Krishna and Achilles speak against war

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

Yudhistira speaks against war in the Mahabharata

In the Mahabharata of ancient India, the figurative blindness of Dhritarastra (discussed in this previous post) and his unwillingness to confront the ever more-aggressive actions of his sons Duryodhana and  Dushashana eventually cause the blind king to sit passively by and allow those princes to trick their cousins the Pandavas (the five illustrious sons of Pandu) out of their rightful kingdoms, steal all their possessions including their clothes, insult and humiliate their beautiful and virtuous wife Draupadi, and banish them to the wilderness.

At the end of their term of exile, the five Pandavas -- led by the eldest of the five, the spiritual and learned Yudhistira -- begin to gather together their allies, including not only many powerful kings who are shocked at the behavior of Duryodhana and his gang, but also including on the side of the Pandavas the god Krishna.

Alarmed at the approach of the five sons of Pandu, and hoping to buy more time to prepare his forces to meet them in battle, Duryodhana sends the learned sage Sanjaya (who personally is sympathetic to the cause of the Pandavas) to advise them against attacking, saying that they should not enter into war just to gain wealth or kingdoms (ironic, of course, because it is Duryodhana and his friends who are seizing the possessions of others, and not the Pandavas).

Sanjaya delivers his message to the five sons of Pandu. Yudhistira listens carefully and allows Sanjaya to speak everything he has to say. Then Yudhistira says (in Book 5 and section 26):

What words from me, O Sanjaya, hast thou heard, indicative of war, that thou apprehends  war? O sire, peace is preferable to war. [. . .] Why should a man ever go to war? Who is so cursed by the gods that he would select war?

Yudhistira then requests that Sanjaya go back to Duryodhana and suggest that he give back what he has taken by fraud.

Sanjaya then goes further and suggests that Yudhistira is well learned in the Vedas and in all the ways of righteousness, and argues that even if what has been stolen is not returned, Yudhistira and his brothers should not try to take it back.

At this point, Yudhistira turns to Krishna and refers the matter to him. Yudhistira indicates that whatever the Lord Krishna says on this subject, he will happily obey.

"I never disregard what Krishna sayeth," Yudhistira says (translations are from the public-domain translation available on the web here, from Kisari Mohan Ganguli, published between 1883 and 1896).

Krishna speaks against war in the Mahabharata

The Lord Krishna then makes his proclamation on the matter (in Book 5 and section 29). He begins by saying that he desires the good of both sides -- the sons of Pandu and the sons of Dhritarastra (also known as the Kurus) -- and that those who sent Sanjaya should demand nothing less than peace:

I desire, O Sanjaya, that the sons of Pandu may not be ruined; that they may prosper, and attain their wishes. Similarly, I pray for the prosperity of king Dhritarastra whose sons are many. For evermore, O Sanjaya, my desire hath been that I should tell them nothing else than that peace would be acceptable to king Dhritarastra. I also deem it proper for the sons of Pandu. A peaceful disposition of an exceedingly rare character hath been displayed by Pandu's son in this matter.

However, Krishna goes on to say that it is right to use force to stop plunderers, robbers, and those who follow their greed to seize what lawfully belongs to others:

A bad king, however, would not understand this. Growing strong, and inhuman, and becoming a mark for destiny's wrath, he would cast covetous eye on the riches of others. Then comes war, for which purpose came into being weapons, and armor, and bows. Indra invented these contrivances, for putting plunderers to death. Religious merit is acquired by putting robbers to death. 

Please note here a subtle but important point which is definitely stated in the text. Krishna is not condoning war -- he is condoning the stopping of robbers and plunderers. He is not saying it is good for kings to go out and seize things with wars -- he explicitly states that when kings do so, they become no different from robbers and plunderers. At that point they must be rightfully stopped.

Krishna goes on to explain that Sanjaya was present when the sons of Dhritarastra took everything from the sons of Pandu, and humiliated Draupadi. Krishna condemns Dhritarastra for remaining passive instead of restraining the violent and detestable behavior of his sons -- and then he points out that Sanjaya, who is a learned and respected sage, also stood by without saying anything while the sons of Dhritarastra acted as plunderers and robbers and worse.

Krishna thus assigns blame not only to the overbearing and rapacious sons of Dhritarastra, but to those who stood by and said nothing as Duryodhana and Dushashana and their cronies courted disaster by so blatantly and provocatively overstepping the bounds of law and morality:

Vidura alone spoke words of opposition, from a sense of duty -- words conceived in righteousness addressed to that man, Duryodhana, of little sense. Thou didst not, O Sanjaya, then say what law and morality were, but now thou comest to instruct the son of Pandu!

Nevertheless, Krishna says that the sons of Pandu are still waiting, and are as willing to serve Dhritarastra, as his nephews, restored to their proper places, as they are ready to fight. "Let king Dhritarastra now do what may be proper for him to do," Lord Krishna concludes, and then urges Sanjaya to take all that has been said and repeat it faithfully and accurately to the king.

Achilles speaks against war in the Iliad

Interestingly enough, there is a scene at the very start of the Iliad in which an overbearing king, this time Agamemnon who is the leader of all the Argive forces in the campaign against Troy, by pride seizes what does not belong to him. This episode comes about after he is forced to release the daughter of the priest of Apollo, in an incident discussed in the previous post.

Since Agamemnon has to give the daughter of Chryses back (in order to avert the arrows of Apollo that are laying waste to all of the assembled Greek forces), he decides to seize the maiden who has been given to Achilles, so that Agamemnon won't lose face (Achilles being by far the most powerful warrior among the Achaeans, even though they are bound by a treaty to follow Agamemnon).

Of course, it should be stated clearly here that using this episode from the Iliad as an example does not at all mean that I condone the taking of captives in war or the awarding of the maidens that have been captured to the various warriors, as is described in this opening scene from the Iliad. 

However, it is also true that I believe the entire Iliad is based upon a celestial metaphor from start to finish, and that it can be conclusively demonstrated, with abundant evidence, that the Greeks represent the sun going through upper half of the annual cycle of the year, while the Trojans represent the months of the lower half of the year -- and that in fact the exact same thing can be demonstrated for the conflict in the Mahabharata (in which the Pandus represent the upper half of the year and the Kurus the lower months).

Ultimately, I believe that these ancient sacred texts are using inspired metaphors in order to convey spiritual truths which apply equally to every single man and woman who finds himself or herself sojourning between the two horizons of this material realm while incarnate in a physical human form.

Nevertheless, just as the text of the ancient Sanskrit epic Mahabharata takes the opportunity to make clear the hideousness -- and avoidability -- of war itself, in the words of Yudhistira and then of the Lord Krishna, the Iliad also presents us with a speech by Achilles in which he laments that he along with the other warriors has ever had to follow Agamemnon into battle (part of a pact they all made long before, involving a pledge to defend whoever was fortunate enough to win the beautiful Helen as his wife).

Disgusted with Agamemnon, Achilles rages:

Shameless --

armored in shamelessness -- always shrewd with greed!

how could any Argive soldier obey your orders,

freely and gladly sailing for you

or fight your enemies, full force? Not I, no.

It wasn't Trojan spearmen who brought me here to fight.

The Trojans never did me damage, not in the least,

they never stole my cattle or my horses, never

in Phtia where the rich soil breeds strong men

did they lay waste my crops. How could they?

Look at the endless miles that lie between us . . .

shadowy mountain ranges, seas that surge and thunder.

No, you colossal, shameless -- we all followed you,

to please you, to fight for you, to win your honor

back from the Trojans -- Menelaus and you, you dog-face!

What do you care? Nothing. You don't look right or left.

[. . .]

No more now--

back I go to Phthia. Better that way by far,

to journey home in the beaked ships of war.

I have no mind to linger here disgraced,

brimming your cup and piling up your plunder. 

Iliad I. 175- 202. Translation by Professor Robert Fagles.

Conclusion

These ancient epics graphically portray the destructiveness and ruin of war. They condemn greed and unrighteousness. And they feature extended passages in which respected warriors, sages, and even gods and goddesses speak out about the hideousness of war.

In the Mahabharata, Krishna makes very clear that the plundering and rapacity of the Kurus will bring about their own total destruction if left unchecked -- and that he blames not only those who are most actively and aggressively and arrogantly crossing over the boundaries of righteousness, but also those who know better and who stand by passively and silently without condemning it or trying to stop it.

Those who are calling for war today should consider very carefully which side is actually acting as the Kurus and which as the Pandavas -- who is doing the plundering and the violation of boundaries, and who is calling for such violations to stop?

And I also believe that everyone alive in the world today has a responsibility to consider very carefully what Lord Krishna says to Sanjaya, about his own culpability as one who knows the order of the universe and who yet stood by silently as the sons of Dhritarastra flaunted the proper respect for other human beings and invited war and ultimately terrible destruction.

Afterword --

Edwin Starr speaks against war in 1970:

To keep the connection alive between this world . . . and reality

image: Wikimedia commons (link and link to background image).

In Peter Kingsley's newly-released series of lectures entitled The Elders, one of the central messages running through all of the lectures is the assertion that the west has lost its connection to the real world which is behind this material facade, and has thus lost its connection to its ancient set of "original instructions."

The consequences are as obvious as they are tragic.

The consequences are also extremely grave: because, as the ancient myths of humanity make very clear, the invisible world -- the realm of the gods -- is in fact that true fount or origin of all life and blessing in the visible, material world.

Elaborating upon a theme which he returns to in many of his talks, he explains that the role of the prophet or shaman in cultures which have not lost their connection with the sacred realm was not necessarily to "predict the future," (a common misconception) but rather to uncover the often-hidden point in the past which led to a divergence from the pattern given to us from the Other Realm, and which is the source of whatever grievous problems we are now as a result experiencing in the present.

In one of the lectures, he illustrates this concept using the voyage to the realm of Persephone, queen of the underworld (pictured above [possibly], from an ancient sculpture thought to date to about 470 BC), described by the ancient seer Parmeneides (discussed in depth in Dr. Kinglsey's 1999 book, In the Dark Places of Wisdom), and also using a very relevant example from the Iliad:

And if you want to have a very simple example, a very good example, of what a prophet is (many of you are familiar with my books), it is there in Parmeneides' poem, where he goes down into the underworld, he is taken to meet the Goddess, she gives him all of this extraordinary teaching, and then she says, "Take it away -- carry it away. Just speak it on behalf of me. Don't change anything -- don't mess with it. Just speak on behalf of me." That is what prophecy is.

And then this issue about telling the future. Very, very interesting -- because we have one almost definition, in ancient Greek, about what prophecy really is.  It was one of the very rare moments where Aristotle actually had a spark of understanding about something.

Prophecy is not about the future. Prophets don't talk about the future. What they do is: they talk about the past -- which has been hidden. Things which have happened -- that have been covered over, and no longer clear. That is what the real prophets do: they speak about the past, but the past that has been forgotten. 

And you can see this if you look: you can see, say, with Empedocles -- this man I'm so connected with. As a prophet, he tries to point out to people what they have forgotten, what has gone wrong, what is missing -- why they don't function in the world anymore, why there is so much suffering, disease, disharmony, misery: because we've forgotten our divine source. He traces it all back.

And you can see it also at the very beginning of Homer's Iliad, when there is a whole plague. The soldiers are devastated, by sickness and plague. They're suffering; they're dying. And what happens, in this case? They find a prophet, and they ask him what's going wrong. And he says: "Apollo -- these are the arrows of Apollo. He's shot these arrows of plague, into the troops, because you did something wrong, you offended Apollo." And then it all becomes very simple. Because you see, once you know what's wrong, then you can sort it out -- you can make amends. It's very, very precise. That is what prophecy is.

And if you look at this process -- I've just said a little about it -- if you look at this real process of prophecy, you see that this is -- or this used to be -- the corrective element in human life. This is what brought people back into connection with the divine. 

But, Peter Kingsley explains, the west at some point in the very distant past jettisoned the connection with that invisible realm, the real world that is behind this material realm, and the source of all life and all blessing, and deliberately cut off the corrective element of prophecy: the process of going into the other world to find out what is wrong.

Where and when that "break in contact" -- that terrible disconnection from the real process of prophecy -- actually took place is a matter worthy of careful consideration. I would argue that it is one of those "things which have happened" that Peter Kingsley talks about in the quotation above "that have been covered over, and no longer clear." 

I believe that there are a number of such "things from the past which have been covered over" that we urgently need to uncover and deal with if we are going to have a hope of "sorting it out" and "making amends," as Dr. Kingsley puts it in his talk.

I would suggest that the shuttering of Oracle at Delphi and the cessation of the Eleusinian Mysteries, during the reign of the emperor Theodosius is probably an important place to look, in what we today label the fourth century (in AD 390 and AD 392, respectively). 

That was a very decisive and revealing step in the history of literalist Christianity -- in conjunction with the power of the Roman Empire -- which represented the first of a long series of moves to shut down the channels by which certain specially attuned men and women could go directlyto the invisible world to gain insight and affect changes that could be achieved in no other way, and for the benefit of the society.

What began there at Delphi and Eleusis -- the deliberate blockading of the doorways given to humanity, by which we can access the other realm -- would then be repeated over and over, with all the other avenues of connection to the divine world which had been given to other cultures as well. The campaign continued throughout other parts of Europe (where the Druidic and the Celtic and the Norse and the far-northern shamanic traditions of people such as the Sami were systematically stamped out) and then on to other parts of the world, including the Americas, the Pacific, and on into the lands far to the west of the Americas and far to the east of the Mediterranean.

That is the legacy that has brought us to this particular point in history -- a point in history which must be understood in light of that ancient disconnect that took place in the early centuries of the cultures that became what today we call "the west." This is the ancient disconnect which Peter Kingsley argues is at the heart of the very serious problems we see around us right now.

I would humbly suggest that a part of the solution is the very solid and very abundant evidence that can now be shown which proves quite beyond a reasonable doubt the scriptures of the Bible are built  upon the very same system of celestial metaphor which is found in virtually every other culture on earth.  

This is evidence which proves, in other words, that the very scriptures that the literalists have been using as a justification for shutting down the channels of communication with the invisible realm are in fact teaching the very same worldview that is taught by the myths of ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, ancient Scandinavia, ancient Gaul, ancient Ireland, ancient Sumer, ancient Babylon, ancient Persia, ancient China, ancient India, ancient Japan, and preserved in the sacred traditions of the cultures of Africa, Australia, the Americas, the Pacific, and the vast steppes and plains and forests and deserts of Asia.

As the vignette Peter Kingsley offers from the Iliad makes very clear, the ancients understood that when the invisible realm is disregarded or (even worse) disrespected, the results are inevitably catastrophic. If the infinite realm -- the realm of the gods, the "seed realm," the realm of pure potentiality -- is in fact the fount or source of everything which manifests itself here in the material realm, then it is the source of life and vitality and health and blessing. 

Thus, when Agamemnon chooses to disregard the order of the universe by insulting and disrespecting the priest of Apollo (and, in doing so, disrespecting Apollo himself), the Achaeans assembled under the temporary command of Agamemnon are visited with plague and death by the Sun God (the destruction of health, and the destruction of life).

As Peter Kingsley also points out in the quotation cited above, the Achaeans cannot by themselves figure out how to stop this deadly problem. The answer cannot be found in the material world alone. 

But, they know what to do: they summon Calchas, whom the poem calls "the clearest by far of all the seers who scan the flight of birds" (I. 80-81). 

Calchas is, in fact, a follower of Apollo -- and Calchas brings back the answer from the divine realm: "The god's enraged because Agamemnon spurned his priest, and refused to free his daughter, he refused the ransom" (I. 111-12, both quotations from the superlative translation of Professor Robert Fagles).

It is worth noting that this example of prophecy is not a matter of "trying to have success in battle" (the entire text of the Iliad indicates that war itself is an aberration, even an abomination) -- the issue at hand is one of life itself, a question of survival.

If the source of the problem, located in the realm of the gods, is not understood and addressed, then the entire culture is in very real danger of being completely wiped out.

This matter that Peter Kingsley is bringing to our attention is a matter of life and death.

That is why he says, at a different point in the very valuable lecture series linked above, regarding this very specific definition of the prophetic tradition (which I would argue has much in common with what is also referred to as the very broad "shamanic tradition," since it was in the often geographically-distant shamanic cultures that this prophetic tradition escaped the tender mercies of the "western cultures" for the longest, even into recent centuries and in some places into the present day):

Prophecy -- prophetic tradition -- is life. And if you don't understand, or I don't understand, what prophetic tradition really is, we don't understand what life is. We have a concept of what life is, but we do not understand what life really is. If you understand what life is, you understand prophetic tradition. If you understand prophetic tradition, you understand what life is. And you realize, that all of human existence hangs from the thread of prophecy. Because the prophets are those who keep the connection alive between this world and reality.

I believe that Peter Kingsley is absolutely right about the central importance of the connection between this material world and the real world that is behind this one -- and that he is absolutely right that the central problem which absolutely must be addressed in the west is the covering over of history: the history of that very disconnect, and its unaddressed consequences.