Aithrobates

Ancient greek source kept refering to Drudism as a celtic form of Pythagorism. And Pythagorism had all kind of links with Far East (in this context poetically named "Hyperborea").

The "two souls" schema, (just like hun/po) both of them existing before and after the body, so "reincarnating", is fairly common. I covers most of the animist ground, Eurasia and the Americas. It's not and Hindu or Buddhist thing, not specifically. More like a "background" stuff. The real question is more about the differences in view of and emphasis on the different traditions have on "reincarnation".

It's Ok to disagree, and I think we can do that for a long time. You are putting bits and pieces of myths here and there, only to stick them to your own interpretation, like it was part of the raw data. All the cosmological traditions about the North you give are authentic, but none prove your theory of artic colonisation in themselves, IMO. It seem automatic in your argumentation that a mention of the cosmological North equals the existence of an actual Northern land. It's your right to think so, but if you want to persuade others you'll have to give a demonstration. Raw data in themselves do not prove your interpretation of them. I think, and that it's not the first time I'm saying that to someone, that you ignore the existence of the imaginal world, the world of the soul, alam al-mithal. Laking this you are left only with the tangible material world, uncorporeal principles, and fantasies. Recognizing the truth in the traditions your are reading, you can not think that they are false, fantasies. As the datas are consistent en practical you can not take them for mere symbol of unattainable intellectual realities far beyond. So you have only one option left. This material world. But there is also a fourth option, that is the imaginal reality of the myths. Imaginal world is where myths happen. Those are not material events from the old times, they are atemporal events of the souls that are happening in Eternity. You do not need to find an historical truth behind the myths. Mythology is not an archaic form of history were things are recorded poetically. History as we know it was invented during the 19th, and goes with nationalism and romantism; that's why German or Indian or whaterver nationalists felt the urge to interpret their myths and to transform them into (fake) history. Parcelsus or Geber, the ones you find too hermetic to be usable ? Both Paracelsus and the persian alchemy form which Geber (Jabir Ibn Hayyan) comes speaks about how to acces the imaginal. Cosmological North is not about an inaccessible divine realm or the long lost city they founded there in the old days. It's a reality of the soul that can be experienced with the correct practice.

I'm not questioning the mystical signifiance of the North, nor the divine origin of spiritual traditions. That is documented in many, many cultures. What I don't follow is the claim of an Arctic country back in the days. But it's true that the mythical lands are often sublty assimilated to actual geographical, said to be there, and yet mysteriously beyond and elsewhere. Like if the material place was nothing but a mere manifestation of a spiritual kingdom that is not really located there. After all Pytheas did travel to Hyperborea. But Aristeas did too, and their respective travel point to two different places (Northern Europe vs Inner Asia). What I also do not follow is your claim about the origin of royalty, bloodlines, etc... Yes. Given the cultural context in which Zozimus talked it's probably about the Nephilim. Hard to say what was the view on them back in those specific times and places. If it's Nephilim we're talking about, we have indeed the theme of engendering royal bloodlines. But what are the analogies with Celtic and Northern myths? What about the Northern Otherworld ?

I still disagree with the claim that the mythologies tell that. But that's OK. You're aware of the nazi view on that matter. That's what I was wondering. Thanks. I have all of Zozimus here, any passage in particular so that we can discuss it precisely ?

Lol ^^ But this Arctic thing is really of nazi origin ! I was not even comparing d4r33n to a nazi. Just telling him that knowingly or not he was profesing such a theory. Thinking by default that he is, of course not, nazi, I'm just advising him to question the sources from were he got this idea, because he may very well find things he will not like.

Down to this point I'm ok. As for the rest... The Arctic origin of sacred traditions, royality, indo-europeans, even of civilisation itself, is a kind of right-wing fantasy. It's based on the idea that so called superior ice races from the North are opposed to inferior fire races of the South. If you do not identify yourself as a nazi and disagree with this racist view, I'd suggest you question your sources on this arctic theory.

I agree that the oldest greek traditions claim to come form Hyperborea, or at least to have been in contact with hyperboreans. But Hyperborea is not the physical Artic. It's a common mythological data of a "Northern Otherworld" you'll find it in Indian and Celtic myth too. Cosmological North, Axis Mundi, the Big Dipper. The greeks used their mythological traditions to describe positive geography. They had litteraly dozens of hypothesis on where Hyperborea was actually located. In the texts where early philosophers are said to be instructed from Hyperborea, the term descibes a land far North and East of the mediterranean world, that would roughly be our Tibet, Mongolia, Northern China.

I can not read the chinese text in the second image. But I can read the imagery, the greek, the hebrew, the latin on the first. The western image has a load of cosmological symbolism. You can trace all them back, through greek alchemists from late antiquity, to even older times when the word "alchemy" didn't even exist. If you follow the clues, that are very well hiddden in plain sight, you'll find yourself reading a greek poem advising to follow the Dao, and talking about many other things you'll find daoists parallels with.

And what about ethic ? There is also a big difference between willing to live long and healthy for one's own benefits of having a good and full life and wanting to go beyond mortality in order to fulfill a cosmic role. Being a good human is a good thing, many do not even achieve that. Following a boddhisattvic path is a different thing. It depends on whom sake we practice for. Us or all sentient beings. (I don't have the terms to express this in daoist terms, buddhists words will have to do the trick )

I was basically meaning that Fu Xi, Trigrams, etc... Just like Daoism evolved in an animist background, because Eurasiatic cultures have one. Not that they are "animist" because animism itself does not constitue a school in a culture that as a whole is animist. I would not have formulated that way but I agree with the going beyond animism and turning to Immortality. But to we have to start from somewhere to go beyond that place. The common awareness, life, etc... I'm talking about are of course not the mundane and embodied persons and consciousness we believe we are for some years before meeting death. I'm talking about what we truly are. That, we have in common with all the cosmos. Animist cultures, (specially in the Amazon from where I'll take an illustration), have very sophisticated views, explaining that every beings live in a state of intersubjectivity. We believe we are human and that we eat bread. But the boar sees himself as human too, an sees the bugs he eats as a bread, thickets as houses, etc... (That was the illustration) It's - sadly - not considered like the philosophy it is, but il clearly sates that beings are attached to bodies (when they have one) and and weave illusions by being attracted, particulary interested, or repulsed by things. I'm not saying that evey people in an animist culture are aiming at going beyond that complex web of subjectivity. Just that the consciousness of the illusion is here, and opens the gates for the creation of schools that will work towards this goals. Daoism, Mazdaism, Pythagorism, ..., and many lineages considered "shamanic" because they are from a country considered "shamanic" from the western perspective.

Indeed, there is no such things as an Animism tradition, with a capital A. Animism or better animist ontology is a concept, but a very clear and precise one, used to describe cultures that sees everything as alive and aware in ways that are just like the way humans are alive and aware. IMO Chinese culture as a whole is - in this understanding - animist. That's why I agree we can say Daoism (like all chinese traditions) is "rooted in" or "based on" or "participates of" an animist culture. The same applies for " Fu Xi, Yijing, Hetu, Luoshu, Chinese etymology ". ( Again animism is not a better term for "shamanism" it's a basic wordview in which (stuff described as) shamanisms and many other traditions exits. )

- Animism ontology is observed mostly in Eurasia in the Americas, in other places people see the way nature is differently. So let's not make it a general, universal theory. But I give you this is very ancient stuff. - Not all spirit work that are refered as shamanism in academia have specialists. In Siberia Mongol an Turk peoples have it, in other tribes have everybody has the right to shamanize - they call it familly shamanism. That's what I'm talking about when I say that the term is applied to many different traditions. So if you narrow the application of the term "shamanism" to the situation where the spirit worker is a specialized person, recognized and qualifed by the community, we're getting something more precise.

Agreed.

Indeed. We have no consensus and no common definitions. That's the whole point of the argument.