BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Risen Gods

 
 
ostranenie
22:17 / 07.06.07
My first Temple thread – please to be gentle. This is the sort of thing I'd expect there to be a thread on already, but I've tried various search terms and found nothing, so excuse me if I'm retreading old ground.

So, the idea that a male god who is sacrificed, dies and is reborn recurs in different versions in many cultures. It seems to be taken as read in a lot of magical writing, though most commonly in Wiccan circles. However, my archaeologist friend says that the idea of strong similarities between sacrificial gods in many cultures originated with Frazer's Golden Bough, and that Frazer was, well, massaging the facts in order to make them fit Christianity. She also feels that Frazer has now been largely discredited.

I was surprised at first – it's a pretty pervasive idea – but it's possible that all the authors I've seen discussing it could have been drawing on Frazer, and Alan Moore's examples of "Risen Gods" in Promethea are rather stretched (Baldur, Osiris).

So I thought I'd put it to you knowledgeable folks. Do you feel this is a universal and ancient archetype, or a relatively new invention? Does it show up in the African traditions, which I admit I know very little about?

Do you feel The Golden Bough has relevance today?

And a wider question - if you find a concept is good to work with, does it matter to you if it's relatively recent or has an ancient lineage?
 
 
*
23:14 / 07.06.07
This is a good concept for a thread.

Frazer was, unfortunately, largely an armchair scholar, and prone to the same problems that plagued most 19th c. anthropologists, namely the deeply held conviction that cultures other than their own were little more than the odd behavior patterns of a number of curiously humanlike animals. He assimilated a lot of evidence gathered by his colleagues in the field—most of whom held the same belief—and then catalogued them according to filters that took this belief as a given. It's hard to know what's useful and what's not.

I'm deeply suspicious of systems of practice that rest on the idea that all religions are essentially the same, or that a large number of deities from different cultures are somehow interchangeable. That said, the notion of a God/dess or S/Hero who faces death in some manner and overcomes it is a fairly common one, and it's interesting to look at some examples and think about why this might be so.

Not in all cases is the dying one a sacrifice, nor do they all "rise again" like the Christian god-hero. Sometimes they are coming close to death but surviving, or fighting/outwitting Death personified. To me it seems like the idea of one who faces people's most universal fear and defeats it in some way is a compelling one for almost every person in the world, whatever their background.

But sometimes it doesn't work:

Maui said to the goddess of the moon: "Let death be short. As the moon dies and returns with strength, so let men die and revive again."

But she replied: "Let death be very long, that man may sigh and sorrow. When man dies, let him go into darkness, become like earth, that those he leaves behind may weep and wail and mourn."

Maui did not lay aside his purpose, but according to the New Zealand story, "did not wish men to die but to live forever. Death appeared degrading and an insult to the dignity of man. Man ought to die like the moon, which dips in the life-giving waters of Kane and is renewed again, or like the sun, which daily sinks into the pit of night and with renewed strength rises in the morning."

Maui sought the home of Hine-nui-te-po-the guardian of life. He heard her order her attendants to watch for any one approaching and capture all who came walking upright as a man. He crept past the attendants on hands and feet, found the place of life, stole some of the food of the goddess and returned home. He showed the food to his brothers and persuaded them to go with him into the darkness of the night of death. On the way he changed them into the form of birds. In the evening they came to the house of the goddess on the island long before fished up from the seas.

Maui warned the birds to refrain from making any noise -while he made the supreme effort of his life. He was about to enter upon his struggle for immortality. He said to the birds: "If I go into the stomach of this woman, do not laugh until I have gone through her, and come out again at her month; then you can laugh at me."

His friends said: "You will be killed." Maui replied: "If you laugh at me when I have only entered her stomach I shall be killed, but if I have passed through her and come out of her mouth I shall escape and Hine-nui-te-po will die."

His friends called out to him: "Go then. The decision is with you."

Hine was sleeping soundly. The flashes of lightning had all ceased. The sunlight had almost passed away and the house lay in quiet gloom. Maui came near to the sleeping goddess. Her large, fish-like mouth was open wide. He put off his clothing and prepared to pass through the ordeal of going to the hidden source of life, to tear it out of the body of its guardian and carry it back with him, to mankind. He stood in all the glory of savage manhood. His body was splendidly marked by the tattoo-bones, and now well oiled shone and sparkled in the last rays of the setting sun.

He leaped through the mouth of the enchanted one and entered her stomach, weapon in band, to take out her heart, the vital principle which he knew had its home somewhere within her being. He found immortality on the other side of death. He turned to come back again into life when suddenly a little bird (the Pata-tai) laughed in a clear, shrill tone, and Great Hine, through whose mouth Maui was passing, awoke. Her sharp, obsidian teeth closed with a snap upon Maui, cutting his body in the center. Thus Maui entered the gates of death, but was unable to return, and death has ever since been victor over rebellious men. The natives have the saying:

"If Maui had not died, he could have restored to life all who had gone before him, and thus succeeded in destroying death."


So what are the effects of a religion based on triumph over death, vs. succumbing to death?
 
 
ostranenie
23:35 / 07.06.07
Great story, zippy/id, and yes, a departure from the way these things usually end. It reminds me of Prometheus, though he did make it back with the fire and only got punished later. And Osiris dying and becoming king of the underworld, but definitely staying dead.

I like your "hero faces up to culture's greatest fear" template too - much more flexible than the death/resurrection one.

And re your first paragraph: yeah, I've always found Frazer hard going because of the need to have Victorian prudishness/prurience filters in place. His preconceptions scream out of the text - which is why it bothers me if he's the original source of key concepts a lot of people accept today.
 
 
Lord Switch
11:39 / 08.06.07
Actually, Osiris Doesn't stay dead all the time. He is killed twice, the first time he comes back normally, it is only the second time they can't bring him back fully and he stays dead. That is when he sires Horus the younger who then becomes his successor and heir. Here it is important to remember that Horus shares a name with Horus the Elder. Thus in many ways it can be said that Horus is his own great grandfather/grandchild.

Regarding Frasier: generally speaking yes, he was an armchair scholar who did have a lot of interesting ways of stretching everything to fit into a christian mould. But we should always try and differentiate between the exoteric and esoteric traditions. The western esoteric tradition has always stated that all gods are interchangeable and that there is one ultimate truth behind them. Which is why it was so easy to adopt and appropriate gods and godesses from different cultures. Their Cults differed, yet the underlying truth/universal concept was the same.

We cannot say that Christ, Osiris, Dionysus etc are the SAME god, as their myths, and most importantly, cults differ. But there is a pattern that we can see in all cultures who know how to grow crops. The cycle of the crops: sowing, reaping baking shitting it out, sowing reaping etc. this pattern will be represented in one way or another by most cultures.
Linking these gods to the sun is a bit of a longer shot and someting that happens later in history, theologically and anthropologically speaking. explaining why certain places have the moon associated with say fertility, as in the case with Khonsu, and others associate it with the sun.

For a student of western esoteric traditions, say wicca, ceremonial magick or the teachings of an initiatory order it is more fruitfull to study esoteric writings such as Fraser rather than modern antropological texts because the former will actually fit in the paradigm. If on the other hand you are more interested in reconstructionistic paganism, say then you'd probably be better off starting with historically correct information.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
14:01 / 08.06.07
For a student of western esoteric traditions, say wicca, ceremonial magick or the teachings of an initiatory order it is more fruitfull to study esoteric writings such as Fraser rather than modern antropological texts because the former will actually fit in the paradigm

That's a fairly weird proposition though, isn't it? It's a bit like encouraging a contemporary Gardnerian Wiccan to stick to reading Margaret Murray because it will fit the paradigm, rather than looking at, say, Ronald Hutton, whose work on witchcraft is rooted in credible research. Surely if there is anything at all to be gained from an esoteric tradition or initiatory order, it should be able to stand up in the light of credible contemporary anthropological research; and shouldn't be such a delicate beast that it can only survive in the dimmed shade of outdated work that you know full well to be faulty and discredited.
 
 
EvskiG
15:15 / 08.06.07
I was wondering about that, too.

I'd rather have serious scholarship than crap scholarship, regardless of how well the latter fits the magical paradigm.
 
 
Ticker
15:38 / 08.06.07
I'd rather have serious scholarship over crap scholarship, regardless of how well the latter fits the magical paradigm.

True but the perception of what is serious and what is crap changes. In this sense effective scholarship is that which remains open to new information rather than settling on absolutes being defined and written in stone now.

From my personal experience there's a metric shit ton of neo pagan stuff out there being done around Celtic mythology and folklore. Much of it's based on, let's call it earlier, scholarship now viewed as problematic. The whole term 'Celtic' is problematic for most current scholars but not for most religious/magical practitioners. Their religious/magical practices are working even when based on the problematic information, in fact there's a whole messy loop effect in place.

To tie this into the thread I offer up John Barleycorn and the Green Man both are incorporated now into pagan practices though their prechristian standing seems dubious to scholars.
 
 
*
17:00 / 08.06.07
But we should always try and differentiate between the exoteric and esoteric traditions. The western esoteric tradition has always stated that all gods are interchangeable and that there is one ultimate truth behind them.

Really? Hmm. Your Greeks and your Romans may have believed that, in part because their traditions were largely based on formally or informally adopting or stealing Gods from other places and people, but I don't think your Norse wonderworkers thought that Zeus was just as good a name as any for Thor. Or are we working on the model that Greek-Roman = Western esoteric; Norse, though Western and esoteric = neither?

Gods don't survive unchanged* when lifted from one cultural context into another. For an example, read Lynn Roller's In Search of God the Mother, which examines the history of the Phrygian Goddess who came to be known to the Greeks and Romans as Kubele/Cybele. Her image is one many people associate with the Great Mother Goddess supposedly worshiped by all people everywhere in the misty ancient times—fertile, sort of sexy, with a lesser male consort. But in Phrygia, there's no sign that she was ever a fertility Goddess in that sense. She was called Matar, and seems to have been a genius loci—her name changed depending on where she was worshiped. Her temple on Mount Kubileya, for instance, called her Kubileya. She is shown with docile wild animals but never domestic ones. She might be closer to the neopagan Lord of the Beasts than to the Lady of the Fields. She's never depicted as having anything to do with crops. Then when her worship is imported (formally and deliberately) into Rome, suddenly there are fertility rites, grain, a consort, phallic symbols, and a crown that represents the City of Rome (thus civilization and Empire). If all Gods were really interchangeable, I'd think that her worship wouldn't have to change so much just because her worshipers have changed.


*I'm being somewhat facetious. I have no way of knowing if the Gods themselves survive unchanged; I presume so. I mean their worship and the way their worshipers perceive them.
 
 
Ticker
17:31 / 08.06.07
I'm with Zippy on this one.

Syncretism

I think Zippy's example is important because beliefs evolve and each step of the process is a valid destination not merely a midpoint in the journey. Syncretism comments on the process of how things developed and changed.

I personally find it fascinating when tribal Deities and Genus Loci which once functioned as very distinct this place and these people markers get uprooted, exported, and merged. The movement of their human counterparts is obviously a major element here as well but there's more to it then that.

When we look backwards into time and comment on how people worshiped/practiced magic etc we cannot help but source our own experiences to assit in making meaning. Our experiences are our starting points but they are not automatically valid when speculating on the experiences of others.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
17:54 / 08.06.07
I think that the story of sacrifice, death, and rebirth, is the story of initiation; it's an archetype, not a new invention.
 
 
ostranenie
22:33 / 10.06.07
The whole term 'Celtic' is problematic for most current scholars but not for most religious/magical practitioners. Their religious/magical practices are working even when based on the problematic information, in fact there's a whole messy loop effect in place.

Yes. This is what interests me - that a lot of these ideas seem to work even if they're on a dubious foundation from a scholarly point of view. My interest in the Risen Gods idea was because it was working for me - at home last Christmas I was finding it very helpful to think of Jesus and the Christian story as fitting into a larger system, as part of a reconciliation with my past, instead of thinking of Christianity as fundamentally opposed to what I was up to and trying not to look at it. And yes, the Green Man and John Barleycorn - they may be post-Christian arrivals, but they do seem to work, they do seem to have power.

I'm inclined to think that concepts/entities whom a lot of people work with don't need an ancient lineage to be powerful - instead they draw power from their hold on human consciousness now. If an idea is sufficiently powerful, does it matter if it was originally Real or Made Up(tm)?

Then again, such a lot of problematic information does creep in - I've read descriptions of Brigid in fluffy books which were so unrecognisable they made me splutter, and was once invited to a ritual in honour of "Dwyn", a supposedly Welsh god whom 5 minutes of googling revealed had been made up by accident some time in the 80s - that you do need a certain amount of scholarship and fact-checking to distinguish between well-founded and Just Plain Wrong versions of the same god. And declaring all the different versions valid does make it impossible to criticise your or anyone else's practice. Where is the happy medium? What's the balance between seeking objective (ha!) proof and surrendering yourself to Whatever Works?
 
 
Alice Bastable
21:05 / 17.06.07
What Zippy and XK said, yes.

Another big issue with Frazer -- and Campbell and Gimbjutas, and lots of those other beloved-by-Pagans-but-disliked-by-scholars writers -- is that Frazer is pulling a One True Story: I, the educated white western elite, have the One True Story, and everything else is but a pale reflection of this One True Story. Moreover, I am the only person with the requisite knowledge to discern this OTS, so you savages need to sit down and shut up while I explain to you what your stories mean. What your story about some god who dies and rises means in the context of your own culture is irrelevant, because I insist on shoving your story into my Procrustean bed. It's a metanarrative, a monomyth, and most anthropologists and folklorists today are *extremely* wary of them.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
21:16 / 17.06.07
Alice Bastable: Ohhhhh, thankyou. Well put!
 
 
Quantum
10:40 / 18.06.07
Yeah, well put! I'm thinking of reading Campbell in a bit more detail than I have, and the hero's journey etc. falls into that monomyth category. On the other hand, the same criticism can be applied to Jung's archetypes and any scheme of dream interpretation or symbolic framework, that they're framed from the perspective of the theorist and culturally influenced. There's still plenty of valuable stuff to take from that sort of work as not everyone's as imperialist as Frazer, of course.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:11 / 18.06.07
I think that concept--the idea that there's one true story underlying all myths, all legends, and they can all be shoehorned neatly into a single narrative--is actually very damaging. Although obviously modern scholarship has done a good job of debunking and moving away from that school of thought, magicians and pagans don't seem to be able to keep up. The concept still seems to infest a lot of modern spiritual and magical practice, along with other similar syndromes we might consider to be its bastard progeny--the "one true system of magic" attitude, for example. We can see it in every attempt to shove everything into the HCM framework; we can see it in every made-up list of correspondances invented by a "chaote" while waiting for What the *Bleep* Do We Know? to download, assumed to be as effective as any other because all systems are merely window-dressing for the metamagic underneath. It's a pernicious outlook, lending itself to rampant cultural appropriation and bloody rubbish magic.

It's also likely to offer a very unsatisfying, watered-down connection to the spirits and Mystieries behind the myths. Weak scholarship aside, I personally feel that if you go into your spirituality carrying this kind of attitude you risk losing a tremendous amount. You end up with this Ken-doll thing--same model, different outfits. Jesus Ken. Osiris Ken. Meh.
 
 
Ticker
12:47 / 18.06.07
If an idea is sufficiently powerful, does it matter if it was originally Real or Made Up(tm)?

This, my friend, is a tricky place to poke with a stick. AFAIK the only difference between Real and Made Up is the amount of time between when it was invented. All stories are Made Up, even the ones based on verifiable events are still made up into a story. We forget sometimes these things we call myths have always been invented.

If I tell you about my experiences of a normal verifiable day and you retell those deatils to someone else it's just beome Made Up in the sense that the information given over is in fact not the day I experienced at all but a retelling, no matter how close to the facts it remains.

So Real vs Made Up is often just about a gloss of antiquity to make it a prevailing belief of What Happened. Doesn't mean it Happened or Didn't Happen or is Happening.


I experience a Reality which is more than happy to accommadate any set of What Happened and is Happening. So why bother doing decent research and constantly seeking to improve one's knowledge? Because to claim expertice on another person's experience is an arrogance which can only be remedied by placing one self in the postion of eternal student to their ways.

IMO beliefs work not because they are absolute truths but because of the engine power of the act of believing. The fun thing here of course is there is enough juice in the circuit to make the things we believe become Real.
 
 
EvskiG
15:08 / 18.06.07
Nicely put.

I think that concept--the idea that there's one true story underlying all myths, all legends, and they can all be shoehorned neatly into a single narrative--is actually very damaging.

I'll agree that there's not necessarily one true story with a single narrative -- an Atlantis, a Lemuria, the dying god, etc. -- underlying all myths.

But it seems to me that there are certain universals or near universals based in biology (people sleep and dream, people need to eat and drink, people are born from women, women generally menstruate monthly for a good part of their lives, people have sex by themselves and with each other) and nature (the sun rises and sets, much of the world experiences seasons, crops grow and can be harvested, too much heat or cold can kill people, etc.) that probably serve as foundations for certain extremely common beliefs and myth structures almost worldwide.

As for myths of the dying and reborn god (Osiris, Jesus, John Barleycorn, etc.) in some cultures, this may be restating the obvious, but it seems to me that that really grows out of three things: (1) the sun, which rises and appears to be born, sets and appears to die or enter the underworld, and rises and is reborn the next day, (2) the agricultural cycle, where certain crops grow out of the ground, are harvested and plowed under, and then grow out of the ground again the next year, and (3) male sexual response, where a man can get an erection, ejaculate, lose the erection, and eventually get another erection again.

Hence the common association between a dying and reborn god, the sun, the agricultural cycle, and (sometimes) male sexuality. Remember the unexpurgated version of how Isis was said to have revived Osiris . . .
 
 
*
16:48 / 18.06.07
But it seems to me that there are certain universals or near universals

As for myths of the dying and reborn god (Osiris, Jesus, John Barleycorn, etc.) in some cultures, this may be restating the obvious, but it seems to me that really grows out of three things: (1) the sun, which rises and appears to be born, sets and appears to die or enter the underworld, and rises and is reborn the next day, (2) the agricultural cycle, where certain crops grow out of the ground, are harvested and plowed under, and then grow out of the ground again the next year, and (3) male sexual response, where a man can get an erection, ejaculate, lose the erection, and eventually get another erection again.


Weeeell... yes and no.
1) Can you really say that it's a cultural universal that the sun appears to die every night and be reborn again in the morning? It certainly seems like a common-sense interpretation of the phenomenon, but there's also the version of the myth where the sun journeys underground to come out the other side of the earth in the morning. And it's even more intuitive to imagine that the sun goes home to sleep for the night and wakes up in the morning like everyone else.
2) Not every society with a dying-and-reborn God is an agricultural one.
3) I'm wary (and weary) of explanations for myths that revolve around penises. My dick is endlessly fascinating to me and a source of great myffic and spirichwal power, naturally, but then again, so is my cunt. And the sun, let alone the dead-and-risen God, is not always male.
 
 
shockoftheother
17:24 / 18.06.07
(1) the sun, which rises and appears to be born, sets and appears to die or enter the underworld, and rises and is reborn the next day

It's interesting that some of the historical discourse on this myth places the death-resurrection myth in the same category as the underworld voyage. Personally, I don't see them as really that similar at all: Orpheus' descent into the underworld is a willed undertaking, and is all about what Orpheus does in the underworld, and what he wins back from the face of death. The experience of the dying and resurrected god seems to me to be reliant on submission to death, to the point where it requires an act of exterior grace to return from the dead - for instance, the love of Isis for Osiris, which leads her to gather together the parts of his body to reanimate him. In this case Osiris can't do anything himself. The two experiences are quite dissimilar.
 
 
EvskiG
17:29 / 18.06.07
Note the two separate paragraphs in my post: (1) "it seems to me that there are certain universals or near universals" and (2) "[a]s for myths of the dying and reborn god . . . in some cultures . . ."

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I intended those paragraphs to be distinct. I'm not saying the myths of the dying and reborn god in some cultures are "universals or near universals."

Can you really say that it's a cultural universal that the sun appears to die every night and be reborn again in the morning?

Of course not. I didn't say this.

I merely said it appeared to be a common belief (as you noted, it "certainly seems like a common-sense interpretation of the phenomenon"), and one probable basis of the myth of the dying-and-reborn god.

2) Not every society with a dying-and-reborn God is an agricultural one.

Didn't say this either.

Can't think of a counter-example, but I hardly have an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.

As I said, it seems to me that the agricultural cycle fits quite nicely with the dying-and-reborn god myth, and that the agricultural cycle provides one basis for creating a myth of a dying-and-reborn god.

3) I'm wary (and weary) of explanations for myths that revolve around penises. My dick is endlessly fascinating to me and a source of great myffic and spirichwal power, naturally, but then again, so is my cunt.

Regardless of your wariness or weariness, for better or worse penises are responsible for more than one myth, whether it's the creation of the universe by Atum (or Enki) or the resurrection of Osiris. And it seems to me that connecting male sexuality to the myth of the dying-and-reborn god isn't too much of a stretch.

You may disagree.

And the sun, let alone the dead-and-risen God, is not always male.

Didn't say it was.

Just said there's a "common association between a dying and reborn god, the sun, the agricultural cycle, and (sometimes) male sexuality."

Didn't think that was controversial, but there you have it.
 
 
*
17:41 / 18.06.07
I was still thinking about the issues raised earlier, of Frazer and Campbell and others who overuniversalize. I saw in your points a reflection of those Campbell frequently makes, and I was responding to my idea of Campbell's arguments and not your post as written. Please accept my apologies.

Here's something else that comes up for me: When we theorize about agricultural societies with male sun gods who die and are reborn, why do we pick those to think so much about? Why are those placed on a continuum with Christianity at the apex the way Frazer did, or in a box that includes Christianity the way Campbell tends to, when myths that don't fit that continuum or category are ignored or seen as peripheral anomalies? Why isn't there as much scholarship about solar-feminine religions, or non-agricultural-rebirth stories, or mythologies that lack death-and-rebirth metaphors or do something different with them, like the Maui myth?
 
 
Ticker
17:54 / 18.06.07
When we theorize about agricultural societies with male sun gods who die and are reborn, why do we pick those to think so much about? Why are those placed on a continuum with Christianity at the apex the way Frazer did, or in a box that includes Christianity the way Campbell tends to, when myths that don't fit that continuum or category are ignored or seen as peripheral anomalies?

IMO this is done in order to draw in a richer variety of options for a current tradition. It's a tool of appropriation by saying 'these things are alike/same' it blurs the lines of permission to access another culture's kit.

For example I have a lovely greeting card which depicts Jesus as the Horned God. The qualities of 'likeness' allow for some of the non Christian elements to be pulled over into the Christian without stepping on the Christian doctrine. Only the artist's intent didn't quite fly with the Christian religious authorities and I believe they were told to stop printing them. Too much blurring.

Anyhow to be more focused about your question the dominant paradigm (5p to the swear box!)seeks to reaffirm itself with 'evidence' from other cultures. 'Look!' they say 'The great universal Creator God who is also the born/dying/reborn Sun/Son!'
It really serves no function for understanding the other cultures it only serves to widen the palette and 'heritage' of the one appropriating.

It's a werid form of justifying why you can wear someone else's ceremonial hat to do your own thing.

Oh and I should add I'm not meaning to point the finger only at Christianity. As far as I'm concerned the entire cult of the Great Mother uses the same sort of propaganda revisionist history style.
 
 
Quantum
17:56 / 18.06.07
Why isn't there as much scholarship into solar-feminine myths etc? I suspect because people look for confirmation of their underlying belief ('There is a metamyth') and start from familiar territory ('Jesus dies and is resurrected') and then look for similar stories ('Hey, Osiris dies and is resurrected!') and don't look too hard for counterexamples. Especially around the time much of the basis of this stuff arose, when research techniques were less rigorous.

Pacific heritage was largely discounted or ignored until relatively recently as were a lot of cultures, because Western European folklore and heritage (and their Graeco-Roman/Egyptian forebears) are so well documented and so much nearer to white upper class Victorian men. If your research is largely done in the British Museum, that's going to skew your data.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:57 / 18.06.07
Mmmmmm. Genitaaaaals.

Ev G, I think it comes back to Procrustean-bedding certain elements of myths and legends to they fit a pet system or theory versus examining the weave of the Mysteries through different traditions, respectfully and lovingly. It would be silly to suggest that there are no parallels to be drawn between various of the risen Gods, but too close an equivalence undermines Their power.


PS--not directed at Ev G, more of a general point: Baldr is not a solar deity. He hav 0 to do with the sun. The relevant sun-Goddess is Sunna.
 
 
EvskiG
15:36 / 12.07.07
Just got back from the Yucatan. Fun!

While I was there I read a story in the Popul Vuh that seemed relevant to this thread.

Two trickster gods, the brothers Hunahpú and Xbalanqué, go down to Xibalba, the underworld, to rescue their murdered father. Beforehand they tell their grandmother to plant an ear of corn in her house -- while it lives, they live.

After several adventures the Lords of Xibalba kill the brothers, crush their bones on a millstone, and throw the remains in the river. The ear of corn dies and their grandmother weeps. But the brothers are reborn (first as catfish, then as boys) and the ear of corn comes back to life.

They trick the Lords of Xibalba, restore their father, emerge from the underworld, and become the sun and the moon.

Sounds more-or-less familiar.
 
  
Add Your Reply