Adrian Wagner?
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
from
http://www.mediaquest.co.uk/awagner.html
"The composer, artist, media consultant and music producer, Adrian
Wagner is the great-great grandson of the famous nineteenth-century
Grail opera composer, Richard Wagner..."
Personally I am very sceptical about this claim, but frankly I have no
proof either pro or con?
Thanks
Derrick Everett
It's a con.
--
Derrick Everett (deverett at c2i.net)
==== Writing from 59°54'N 10°36'E ====
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/index.htm
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:17:39 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
>
> > I wonder if anyone in this forum has ever come across the following
> > from
> >
> > http://www.mediaquest.co.uk/awagner.html
> >
> > "The composer, artist, media consultant and music producer, Adrian
> > Wagner is the great-great grandson of the famous nineteenth-century
> > Grail opera composer, Richard Wagner..."
> >
> > Personally I am very sceptical about this claim, but frankly I have no
> > proof either pro or con?
>
> It's a con.
I guess we never see a birth-certificate to know for sure. Reading
these 3 quotes makes me doubt:
quote:
In 1982, I started research into the Grail Tradition. My quest
started with a fresh, new look at the work of my great, great
grandfather, Richard Wagner's opera 'Parsifal'. I had heard that he
started writing the Opera at Nanteos House, Aberystwyth - the place
where the 'Nanteos Cup' was kept.
quote:
Just over one hundred years later I was reading a book entitled The
Holy Blood and the Holy Grail when I came upon an early paragraph
which related that Richard Wagner had visited the little village of
Rennes-Le-Chāteau in the Pyrenees before he wrote his last opera,
Parsifal.
quote:
From the Old Testament stories and related older accounts, we learn
the origins of the Grail and it's symbolism. One of the first of these
is the 'Cross within the Circle' or the 'Mark of Cain'. The creation
stories, like Genesis, Enuma Elish and The Epic of Gilgamesh,
chronicle a visitation by a race of Gods called Anunnaki who had
intermingled with the earthly people to create a race which we call
Homo Sapiens, as pointed out in the books of Zecharia Sitchin.
end of quote.
Wagner wrote aboiut the Grail in 1848 in The Wibelungen long before
Rennes-Le-Chāteau became in, I doubt whether he travelled to Wales
before then, Zecharia Sitchin is well known for his fantastic
speculations.
Derrick Everett
> "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.04.30...@c2i.net>...
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:17:39 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder if anyone in this forum has ever come across the following
>> > from
>> >
>> > http://www.mediaquest.co.uk/awagner.html
>> >
>> > "The composer, artist, media consultant and music producer, Adrian
>> > Wagner is the great-great grandson of the famous nineteenth-century
>> > Grail opera composer, Richard Wagner..."
>> >
>> > Personally I am very sceptical about this claim, but frankly I have
>> > no proof either pro or con?
>>
>> It's a con.
>
> I guess we never see a birth-certificate to know for sure. Reading these
> 3 quotes makes me doubt:
>
> quote:
> In 1982, I started research into the Grail Tradition. My quest
> started with a fresh, new look at the work of my great, great
> grandfather, Richard Wagner's opera 'Parsifal'. I had heard that he
> started writing the Opera at Nanteos House, Aberystwyth - the place
> where the 'Nanteos Cup' was kept.
The Nanteos Cup is a wooden cup that was dug up near his home at Nanteos
by the eccentric poet George Powell (1842-1882). Although Powell believed
that the cup was the Holy Grail, more recently it has been dated to the
14th century.
Powell does indeed have a Wagnerian connection. Powell attended the
Bayreuth Festival of 1876 and wrote home that he was going to dine at
Wahnfried, although, as far as I have been able to establish, he is never
mentioned in anything written by Richard or Cosima Wagner. The deaths of
Powell and, a few months later, Wagner, were linked in a poem by Powell's
friend, Swinburne.
> quote:
> Just over one hundred years later I was reading a book entitled The Holy
> Blood and the Holy Grail when I came upon an early paragraph which
> related that Richard Wagner had visited the little village of
> Rennes-Le-Château in the Pyrenees before he wrote his last opera,
> Parsifal.
That's where he met Elvis, of course.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> contains these words:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:17:39 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
> > I wonder if anyone in this forum has ever come across the following
> > from
> >
> > http://www.mediaquest.co.uk/awagner.html
> >
> > "The composer, artist, media consultant and music producer, Adrian
> > Wagner is the great-great grandson of the famous nineteenth-century
> > Grail opera composer, Richard Wagner..."
> >
> > Personally I am very sceptical about this claim, but frankly I have no
> > proof either pro or con?
> It's a con.
That I can't say, but I do remember hearing about somebody of this name
living in the Oxford area when I did, in the early 1980s, and getting
into the papers with his claim. I also remember some kind of legal
dispute involving him hitting the papers, over the purchase of a
synthesizer, I believe. I'd be extremely reluctant to report the facts
after so long, lest I do him an injustice, but it did strike me at the
time that it could equally well have involved his purported ancestor!
Cheers,
Mike
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> > It's a con.
>
> That I can't say, but I do remember hearing about somebody of this name
> living in the Oxford area when I did, in the early 1980s, and getting
> into the papers with his claim. I also remember some kind of legal
> dispute involving him hitting the papers, over the purchase of a
> synthesizer, I believe. I'd be extremely reluctant to report the facts
> after so long, lest I do him an injustice, but it did strike me at the
> time that it could equally well have involved his purported ancestor!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Surely, we should not pose injustice on anyone. But may everyone claim
to have a linage to Wagner, just because he has musical talent, which
Adrian undoubtly has?
Thanks to Derrick commenting on quote one, it reveals some insight
where the connection might have come from?
I am doubtful as expressed in quote 3, David Icke would certainly say
that AW has joined up with L. Gardeners grail claims and with Z.
Sitchin. See Davids site for more. They all connect to
Rennes-Le-Chāteau popularised by the book The Holy Blood and the Holy
Grail. That book links to the troyan origin of the Franks just the
same way as Wagner in The Wibelungen, coincidence ? This further
fosters Dagoberts Revenge theory for Lady Di`s demise (at the site of
ancient temple of goddess Diana at Paris). Is it all just for the
cash, I wonder if one can make a living out of that?
Perhaps I should post this at " Sitchin is not novel. He is part of
UFO-religious cults." at
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=10&sid=db5371aa016fa5019bb0213568f2e197.
Derrick Everett
> Mike Scott Rohan <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<200305011...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk>...
>
>> > It's a con.
>>
>> That I can't say, but I do remember hearing about somebody of this name
>> living in the Oxford area when I did, in the early 1980s, and getting
>> into the papers with his claim. I also remember some kind of legal
>> dispute involving him hitting the papers, over the purchase of a
>> synthesizer, I believe. I'd be extremely reluctant to report the facts
>> after so long, lest I do him an injustice, but it did strike me at the
>> time that it could equally well have involved his purported ancestor!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> Surely, we should not pose injustice on anyone. But may everyone claim
> to have a linage to Wagner, just because he has musical talent, which
> Adrian undoubtly has?
> Thanks to Derrick commenting on quote one, it reveals some insight
> where the connection might have come from? I am doubtful as expressed in
> quote 3, David Icke would certainly say that AW has joined up with L.
> Gardeners grail claims and with Z. Sitchin. See Davids site for more.
> They all connect to Rennes-Le-Château popularised by the book The Holy
> Blood and the Holy Grail.
A book which has been shown to have been based, in large part, on an
elaborate hoax.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
> A book which has been shown to have been based, in large part, on an
elaborate hoax.
Do you have a link where someone analyzed this hoax in detail?
Thanks
Derrick Everett
The hoax is now well-documented. There is a book which contains a detailed
and (for Henry Lincoln) devastating analysis of how Lincoln has been
fooled: "The Unknown Treasure: The Priory of Sion Fraud and the Spiritual
Treasure of Rennes-le-Château", Houston, TX: NorthStar, 1998. He writes:
"In recent years, a great deal of information has been published in books
like 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' alleging that the Holy Grail actually refers
to a bloodline descended from Jesus. By this account Jesus and Mary
Magdalene produced offspring, and their descendants gave rise to the
Merovingian dynasty, which ruled France from 476 to 750 A.D. Well-
intentioned readers and even authors have been deceived by this story and
have mistaken it for the revelation of a suppressed history. Unfortunately
the only thing that has been suppressed is the truth."
"The Grail is not a bloodline. This false story originated in reams of
fraudulent documents created by an extreme right-wing French sect. The
group responsible for these fictions, calling itself the 'Priory of Sion'
and claiming an ancient esoteric lineage, has kept its own authentic
history carefully hidden. How it constructed its fraud has not been
revealed. It is long past time for the light of truth to reveal the
'Priory of Sion' and the fictional bloodline it has promoted for what they
are really are -- a fraud. The background of this group reveals its actual
motives and sources of information."
There is a summary of Richardson's analysis here:
< http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html >
Another investigator, who has corresponded with Lincoln and examined the
evidence related to Lincoln's expanding claims about Rennes-le-Château,
presents a wealth of diverse material related to the case here:
< http://smithpp0.tripod.com/psp/idx.html >
Derrick Everett
> On Fri, 02 May 2003 23:06:02 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
>
>> "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message
>> news:<pan.2003.05.02....@c2i.net>...
>>
>> The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
>>
>>> A book which has been shown to have been based, in large part, on an
>> elaborate hoax.
>>
>> Do you have a link where someone analyzed this hoax in detail?
>>
>>
> The hoax is now well-documented. There is a book which contains a
> detailed and (for Henry Lincoln) devastating analysis ...
That sentence should have begun:
"There is a book by Robert Richardson which contains a detailed and (for
Henry Lincoln) devastating analysis ..."
Sorry.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> On Fri, 02 May 2003 23:06:02 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
>
> > "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2003.05.02....@c2i.net>...
> >
> > The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
> >
> >> A book which has been shown to have been based, in large part, on an
> > elaborate hoax.
> >
> > Do you have a link where someone analyzed this hoax in detail?
> >
> >
> The hoax is now well-documented. There is a book which contains a detailed
> and (for Henry Lincoln) devastating analysis of how Lincoln has been
> fooled: "The Unknown Treasure: The Priory of Sion Fraud and the Spiritual
>
> "In recent years, a great deal of information has been published in books
> like 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' alleging that the Holy Grail actually refers
> to a bloodline descended from Jesus. By this account Jesus and Mary
> Magdalene produced offspring, and their descendants gave rise to the
> Merovingian dynasty, which ruled France from 476 to 750 A.D. Well-
> intentioned readers and even authors have been deceived by this story and
> have mistaken it for the revelation of a suppressed history. Unfortunately
> the only thing that has been suppressed is the truth."
>
> "The Grail is not a bloodline. This false story originated in reams of
> fraudulent documents created by an extreme right-wing French sect. The
> group responsible for these fictions, calling itself the 'Priory of Sion'
> and claiming an ancient esoteric lineage, has kept its own authentic
> history carefully hidden. How it constructed its fraud has not been
> revealed. It is long past time for the light of truth to reveal the
> 'Priory of Sion' and the fictional bloodline it has promoted for what they
> are really are -- a fraud. The background of this group reveals its actual
> motives and sources of information."
>
> There is a summary of Richardson's analysis here:
>
> < http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html >
>
> Another investigator, who has corresponded with Lincoln and examined the
> presents a wealth of diverse material related to the case here:
>
> < http://smithpp0.tripod.com/psp/idx.html >
Thanks for the links and the content, I have always felt uneasy to
accept this book as such, I found it weary to read. Partially since I
found another explanation of the grail. If you follow me to
http://templarchronicle.homestead.com/cauldron.html
you get a physical evidence of the grail on top, go to the bottom of
site and enter Site Map
and bottom again to
Rennes-le-Chateau
enter
Mountain of Salvation
go to bottom read
quote
"Also, we see in these definitions, such as "hinge-point," the "Place
of Crossing" of the Sumerians. Nibiru, the planet of Crossing, Nippur,
the place of Crossing, where the Duranki was Kept, and the Hebrews,
people of the Crossing.
end of quote.
again go back and and enter the link above
Tomb of God,...
go near to the end to read:
quote
"The cauldron of the sages was a relic won as a trophy, when the
Enlilites subdued a community of Serpent (and Cow-Goddess) worshippers
near Carchemish, one of the earliest known settlements. This bowl was
subsequently placed, we are told, in a crypt underneath the holy of
holies in the central temple of Enlil at Nippur. We shall deal with
this more in depth, below. This, according to history, and according
to the writings of Zecharia Sitchin, is where the "Bond- Heaven-Earth"
or DurAnKi was located. This is the Secret of the Grail, by the way.
The merging of Heaven and Earth."
end of quote
This seems to be what Sitchin found out and is modelling his UFO
claims upon. A. Wagner seems to follow that direction. It is partially
based upon truth, but diverting into a new-age cult.
Read the truth at
www.geocities.com/sa_ga_g
and
http://www.soulkingdom.net/commentpage.htm
Laon
But I don't think it's especially useful to think of the Holy Grail as
a historical object. (It's like people who come up with
"rationalistic" explanations of the parting of the Red Sea in
_Exodus_, by postulating freak earthquake events, or freakish tides
due to the moon's unusual proximity that year, or whatever. When in
fact it's simply a legend, a story that needs explaining in cultural,
story-creating terms, not in geological terms.)
The holy grail is also a legend. As I understand it, it's not even
based on the original Biblical legend, but a later addition that draws
on pre-Christian sources. The New Testament mentions two important
cups, I think, and these have provided a sort of approximate hook for
connecting non-Christian legends to the basic Christian story.
There's:
(1) The cup used at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-29, mentioned also
in Mark, Luke and John), which can give people energy, and which
people should drink of, in remembrance of Jesus (that's the most
literal reading of Jesus' words, which have a particular cup as their
subject; however most people don't really think Jesus meant that
specific cup);
(2) There's the metaphorical cup that Jesus mentions at Gethsemene
(Matthew 26: 39 and 41, mentioned also in Mark, Luke and John), when
he asks YHWH to "take this cup away from me". Even though it's only a
metaphorical cup, a lot of medieval and Rennaissance paintings put an
actual cup into the painting when they depict this scene, held by one
of the really important angels. (I forget which one).
But the holy grail is a different mythical cup, and it's a later
legend than those collected in the New Testament. It's the cup in
which Joseph of Arimathea supposedly collected Jesus's blood after the
centurion stuck him in the side. Presumably Joseph of Arimathea must
have done this when he turned up after Jesus was taken down from the
crucifix, because all the New Testament accounts that mention Joseph
of Arimathea say he turned up after Jesus died (leaving aside the
ambiguity in John as to whether Jesus was dead at all).
If the holy grail isn't a Biblical legend, where does it come from?
I'd suggest two main sources. First, the cup of Amalthea, the
legendary cornucopia, which pours out the food of the (classical) gods
in limitless profusion; people partake of the cup and are replenished
on non-earthly food. (I wonder if the coincidence of names,
Amalthea/Arimathea, helped link the legend of this cup, the
cornucopia, to the legend of Joseph of Arimathea. But I'm not saying
it's so, just raising the possibility.)
Second, the cauldron of Bran and similar Celtic objects that had a
similar legendary role. I'm sure Derrick has more information at his
fingertips than I would find with a search, on the Celtic sources of
the holy grail myth.
In short, the holy grail is just one more example of Christianity
taking over the pre-existing myths, religious holidays and religious
symbols of other cultures. So there never was one holy grail; as a
Christian myth it seems to have been invented somewhere between 600
and 1,000 years after the Crucifixion.
So the holy grail isn't "lost", and can't be "found", because it's
just a story. There are holy grails all over Italy - I've seen a
couple, and been invited to see plenty of others, but I decided to
spend my Euros on wine instead - and no doubt there are plenty of
other grails in other European countries. I also saw nails from the
holy cross and much else. There are at least seven extant holy spears
that I'm aware of. And they all have an equal claim to authenticity,
as do the cups in the web sites you provided links for.
(We don't have many holy grails down New Zealand way, by the way; but
I do have a piece of wood from the original tekoteko of Ihenga, which
I think is even better.)
Sorry to be so bloody-mindedly pendantic and literal-minded (traits of
mine that rightly annoyed Simon W, who doesn't like Empirical
victories): but looking for a historical grail is just a complete
wrong turning, cul de sac, etc, if you're thinking about the grail's
significance.
It's a symbol.
There's a lot to be said about what Wagner meant by that symbol. (Not
much of it to be said by me at the moment, since I'm between thoughts
on that topic.) But when you're trying to explore the way Wagner used
and intended the symbol, I'd suggest that you look in Wagner's essays,
and his obiter dicta as recorded by Cosima, as a first resort. And
look into his reading as a second resort. Rather than looking in a
lot of late 20th century bollocks about the Prieury de Wherever,
Chariots of the Gods, etc.
By the way, I note that you cited David Icke as a sort of authority.
I would only cite David Icke as someone who is moderately entertaining
but ... well... Did you know that David Icke claims that the British
royal family are actually not human, but reptilian beings from outer
space who eat human flesh? I don't like the British royal family
either, but I'm not sure that David Icke is a fully reliable source.
Cheers!
Laon
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
pra...@presto.net.au (Laon) wrote in message news:<4f8f3beb.03050...@posting.google.com>...
Laon,
Sorry, I cannot answer in that lenght here. But you mention links I
provided and your reasoning about them is not according to their
content.
If you go to http://www.soulkingdom.net/commentpage.htm you find
clearly that it opposes David Ickes opinion on the bloodline of the
grail, shape shifting, reptilians. The site is historic. This does not
mean that David Icke is absolutely wrong about everything.
If you read http://www.geocities.com/sa_ga_g you would understand that
there is a mention of a grail in the Edda lays, that was lost in
battle and found as described as a physical piece of evidence, not a
myth. If you enjoy myths, it is up to you. But who says, Wagner did
not want reality and would not have been delighted by it?
If I read through the site that Derrick provided on the Priory of Sion
hoax, I feel astounded by the deep insight provided there - but when I
find that this is on a page connected to theosophs I wonder how
trustful this is again. So I am quite happy to come across an
artificat that can stand test and is not made up, I do not care about
any artificial graill. But knowing the real grail it becomes clearer
to me that this late Priory of Sion is a hoax.
So if the Edda records a grail and the Bible records a grail and
archaeology finds they stem both from the same artifact, that is
fine with me and I see no need to know all the other grails or spears
you mentioned, their mission has been fulfilled, if there was any.
Peace
Mike Scott Rohan
from pra...@presto.net.au (Laon) contains these words:
> I'm not on my home ground here.
> But I don't think it's especially useful to think of the Holy Grail as
> a historical object. (It's like people who come up with
> "rationalistic" explanations of the parting of the Red Sea in
> _Exodus_, by postulating freak earthquake events, or freakish tides
> due to the moon's unusual proximity that year, or whatever. When in
> fact it's simply a legend, a story that needs explaining in cultural,
> story-creating terms, not in geological terms.)
Agreed. It's only one step removed from Erich von Daniken-style
nonsense, the lead-footed reductionism that insists Sindbad's Roc was a
helicopter, or the awesome Wandjina paintings are "obviously" astronauts
in space-suits (curiously like NASA c1969, instead of some much improved
interstellar tailoring!). It patronizes earlier peoples mightily,
suggesting that they were simply earthbound and superstitious, and not
possessed of any kind of creative imagination.
> The holy grail is also a legend. As I understand it, it's not even
> based on the original Biblical legend, but a later addition that draws
> on pre-Christian sources. The New Testament mentions two important
> cups, I think, and these have provided a sort of approximate hook for
> connecting non-Christian legends to the basic Christian story.
As you say, the Graal seems not to have been a Christian symbol at al,
even in a quite late form of the myth -- which by then had already
incorporated both chivalric elements and Parsifal himself -- but a stone
which somehow provided infinite plenty, another of a familiar class of
supernatural images -- including those you cite, Bran's cauldron (and a
number of others) and the cornucopia, but also the quern Grotte and the
Sampo, and the like. If one must look for a rationale, it may also have
derived from early animist cults based on sacred rocks, which we do know
existed.
> There's a lot to be said about what Wagner meant by that symbol. (Not
> much of it to be said by me at the moment, since I'm between thoughts
> on that topic.) But when you're trying to explore the way Wagner used
> and intended the symbol, I'd suggest that you look in Wagner's essays,
> and his obiter dicta as recorded by Cosima, as a first resort. And
> look into his reading as a second resort. Rather than looking in a
> lot of late 20th century bollocks about the Prieury de Wherever,
> Chariots of the Gods, etc.
Especially as most of it has been exposed as thoroughly testicular --
Herr Erich von Sterich repeatedly, a shifty ex-hotel manager who wrote
his second book in jail, not for tax reasons, as he claims now, but for
embezzling the takings, and who has been shown up as a deliberate liar
in several instances.
> By the way, I note that you cited David Icke as a sort of authority.
> I would only cite David Icke as someone who is moderately entertaining
> but ... well... Did you know that David Icke claims that the British
> royal family are actually not human, but reptilian beings from outer
> space who eat human flesh? I don't like the British royal family
> either, but I'm not sure that David Icke is a fully reliable source.
Especially as the daft turquoise-robed bugger appears to have derived
his ideas from a singularly uninspired TV SF series called "V". Not just
doolally, but unoriginally so.
Personally I do rather like the Royal Family, both in themselves (the
Divine Average, far more so than most rulers) and as heads of state a
lot safer and more tyranny-proof than President (or Comrade, or Fuhrer)
Stork, or whichever specimen of politician is whoring after power next
-- and, let's face it, because anyone Rupert Murdoch hates is bound to
be good for Britain and worthwhile generally. And Prince Charles pays
attention to the arts, and even likes opera in a mild sort of way, more
than most politicos dare admit to in case the Sun savages them for it,
as they did over fairly small grants to Covent Garden and the ENO --
unleashing what can only be described as a screaming hymn of hate.
Royals come in handy for that sort of thing. So what if they are
carnivorous alien reptiles? We've had worse.
Cheers,
Mike
Laon
among lots of other things, that "Aryan" people are noble and more
spiritually advanced than other people. I'd bother to get annoyed at
the tired old racist crap, if it weren't so entertainingly silly.
Silly? Well, the site suggests that Aryans are nobler because they
live further north than other peoples, and so they get less sun. And
the sun is bad for the pineal gland, you see, and the pineal gland is
the centre of psychic powers, etc. That's why Aryans are, by and
large, more spiritually advanced. The site suggested lots of other
stuff too, but my eyes keep glazing over when I tried to read it.
The other site reports a claim by a Professor Laurence Waddell
(actually a professor in the unrelated fields of chemistry and
pathology), that he dug up the Holy Grail: the site seems to take this
claim seriously. I haven't read the whole site, since just the first
few paragraphs made my Crap-Detector over-heat, and started a small
fire.
But I do note that this Grail had supposedly been buried for 5,000
years at the time it was dug up.
That seems to mean that at the time Jesus supposedly used the grail at
the last supper it was actually buried underground, and had been
buried for the last 3,000 years, at that time. And when the Eddas
allegedly refer to it (but I'd like to see a reference, with chapter
and verse, demonstrating a reference to a holy grail, or anything
resembling one, in the Eddas; in the meantime I doubt that any such
reference exists), it had been buried for around 4,000 years.
Look sa_ga, you shouldn't be taking this stuff seriously. It's just
candy-floss.
Mike, on the other hand, makes a convincing case for the British
monarchy. The argument that the Royal Family must be a good thing on
the grounds that Rupert Murdoch hates them, and anything that Murdoch
hates must be good, is particularly well calculated to appeal to my
own prejudices. So ... cheers and a Loyal Toast to her Maj and her
eccentric son (not that I mind his eccentricity; I'll grant that's
kind of endearing), neither of whom are Reptiles from Outer Space.
Which is more than you can say for Murdoch.
And to veer back on-topic for a split second while talking things
Brittannic: Wagner's "Rule Brittania" overture is the most shocking
bilge. Bad, bad, bad: Wagner may have produced the worst juvenilia of
any major composer.
Cheers!
Laon
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> Personally I do rather like the Royal Family, both in themselves (the
> Divine Average, far more so than most rulers) and as heads of state a
> lot safer and more tyranny-proof than President (or Comrade, or Fuhrer)
> Stork, or whichever specimen of politician is whoring after power next
> -- and, let's face it, because anyone Rupert Murdoch hates is bound to
> be good for Britain and worthwhile generally. And Prince Charles pays
> attention to the arts, and even likes opera in a mild sort of way, more
> than most politicos dare admit to in case the Sun savages them for it,
> as they did over fairly small grants to Covent Garden and the ENO --
> unleashing what can only be described as a screaming hymn of hate.
> Royals come in handy for that sort of thing. So what if they are
> carnivorous alien reptiles? We've had worse.
>
Pls excuse me, I do not favour reptilianism. Perhaps you like the
Reptilian Resitance Forum
http://members2.boardhost.com/prouty/?966613953 .
Just a side note on the royals.In the Wibelungen
http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagwibel.htm#IDAGQWN
section The Welfen
Wagner mentions what modern conspiracy theorists like J. Coleman
followed up to be the origin of the present day royals.
They argue the Welfs became Guelphs and the House of Hanover and
Windsor.
Welf in german is a synonym for welpe or dog, in Wagners diction for
Hunding, in Edda times the wolf tribes who fought Sigfried. In fact
the scenario is somewhat Ickean, he uses reptilians as synonym for the
snake tribes, the associates of the wolves of Edda times. There is
indeed no bloodline for this as some grail researchers would want, but
the idea is not new and grown from history.
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk, wrote the following:
[snip]
> Personally I do rather like the Royal Family, both in themselves (the
> Divine Average, far more so than most rulers) and as heads of state a
> lot safer and more tyranny-proof than President (or Comrade, or Fuhrer)
> Stork, or whichever specimen of politician is whoring after power next
> -- and, let's face it, because anyone Rupert Murdoch hates is bound to
> be good for Britain and worthwhile generally. And Prince Charles pays
> attention to the arts, and even likes opera in a mild sort of way, more
> than most politicos dare admit to in case the Sun savages them for it,
> as they did over fairly small grants to Covent Garden and the ENO --
> unleashing what can only be described as a screaming hymn of hate.
> Royals come in handy for that sort of thing . . .
[snip]
I agree with that. We Americans may yet see the day when we wish we had the
stabilizing infuence of a monarch (though I'm sure you couldn't get elected
to Congress on that platform).
I think the Australians would have made a mistake to cut themselves loose.
I think Prince Charles was right in his criticism of modern architecture.
Fashions in the arts come and go. If we get tired of looking at a painting,
the museum can put it in the storeroom. But buildings can't be hidden and
are there for a long time.
Dick Partridge
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
You may find the reference to the Edda in the book entitled
The British Edda pp. 162 - 169 L.A.Waddell, London 1930
based on the different MSS of Codex Regius by G. Neckel, Heidelberg 1914.
Hopefully your library has a copy. Good luck.
Charles Zigmund
> >
> >... I think Prince Charles was right in his criticism of modern architecture.
> Fashions in the arts come and go. If we get tired of looking at a painting,
> the museum can put it in the storeroom. But buildings can't be hidden and
> are there for a long time.
>
>
> Dick Partridge
I support, more than his opinion, his right to voice an opinion. It's
refreshing to have a royal figure who's not afraid to open his mouth
about issues. Why should they be the only people in the whole country
to be muzzled? They're not likely to go about trying to abrogate the
rights of Parliament any longer.
Mike Scott Rohan
from sa_...@yahoo.co.in (sa_...@yahoo.co.in) contains these words:
>{snip}
> >
> Pls excuse me, I do not favour reptilianism. Perhaps you like the
> Reptilian Resitance Forum
> http://members2.boardhost.com/prouty/?966613953 .
No, that's been infiltrated by the deros.
> Just a side note on the royals.In the Wibelungen
> http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagwibel.htm#IDAGQWN
> section The Welfen
> Wagner mentions what modern conspiracy theorists like J. Coleman
> followed up to be the origin of the present day royals.
> They argue the Welfs became Guelphs and the House of Hanover and
> Windsor.
> Welf in german is a synonym for welpe or dog, in Wagners diction for
> Hunding, in Edda times the wolf tribes who fought Sigfried. In fact
> the scenario is somewhat Ickean, he uses reptilians as synonym for the
> snake tribes, the associates of the wolves of Edda times. There is
> indeed no bloodline for this as some grail researchers would want, but
> the idea is not new and grown from history.
Speaking as something of a historian, this is a load of ripe dingo's
kidneys, Wagner's theory included.
Cheers,
Mike
Derrick Everett
> Path:
> juliett.dax.net!dax.net!news01.chello.no!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!nsc.no!nextra.c
> om!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postn
> ews1.google.com!not-for-mail
> From: sa_...@yahoo.co.in (sa_...@yahoo.co.in) Newsgroups:
> humanities.music.composers.wagner Subject: Re: Henry Lincoln and the
> Priory of Sion Hoax Date: 8 May 2003 11:04:20 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 6
> Message-ID: <ca71138c.03050...@posting.google.com>
> References: <ca71138c.0304...@posting.google.com>
> <200305011...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk>
> <ca71138c.03050...@posting.google.com>
> <pan.2003.05.02....@c2i.net>
> <ca71138c.03050...@posting.google.com>
> <pan.2003.05.03....@c2i.net>
> <ca71138c.03050...@posting.google.com>
> <4f8f3beb.03050...@posting.google.com>
> <200305061...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk>
> <BADF35AC.8D6A%r.par...@verizon.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.110.213.193
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1052417060 27941 127.0.0.1 (8 May 2003
> 18:04:20
> GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 2003
> 18:04:20 GMT X-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 20:04:17 MET DST
> (news01.chello.no) Xref: juliett.dax.net
> humanities.music.composers.wagner:13374 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding:
> 8bit
There is only one Codex Regius and it is in Reykjavik. There is nothing
British about it. The critical edition with English translation is edited
by Ursula Dronke and it is here on my desk. Old Icelandic, anyone?
I found Waddell's twaddle amusing, especially the illustration in which a
character was making off with the Holy Grail which he was shown "wearing
as a hat". I suppose that any helmet in any drawing could be the Holy
Grail.
Fridrik Skulason
> On Thu, 08 May 2003 11:04:20 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
> There is only one Codex Regius and it is in Reykjavik. There is nothing
> British about it. The critical edition with English translation is edited
> by Ursula Dronke and it is here on my desk. Old Icelandic, anyone?
Old Icelandic? Sure...do you need something translated?
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> British about it. The critical edition with English translation is edited
> by Ursula Dronke and it is here on my desk. Old Icelandic, anyone?
Message was that the Neckel edition was based on the Codex Regius.
There was no message that the original is not in Iceland, returned
from Denmark indeed.
>
> I found Waddell's twaddle amusing, especially the illustration in which a
> character was making off with the Holy Grail which he was shown "wearing
> as a hat". I suppose that any helmet in any drawing could be the Holy
> Grail.
Why did you not share the picture with the rest, knowing it is on
http://www.truthcampaign.ukf.net/mainpages/articles_frame.html
fourth picture from top in
The Origins of the Biblical Genesis
in Relation to David Icke's Version
as Given in The Biggest Secret
by Ivan Fraser?
Mike Scott Rohan
from Richard Partridge <r.par...@verizon.net> contains these words:
> [snip]
> I agree with that. We Americans may yet see the day when we wish we had the
> stabilizing infuence of a monarch (though I'm sure you couldn't get elected
> to Congress on that platform).
I believe some of the loony private-militia survivalists presently run
on a conspiracy theory that H.M. is plotting to subvert and reconquer
the USA....
> I think the Australians would have made a mistake to cut themselves loose.
It'd be their right, and in their image of Britain (sedulously promoted
by R.Murdoch Industries) the monarchy stands for all the stuffiest
things. But they can't cut Britain out of their culture or their blood,
so IMHO they ought to be more secure about it. Trying so stridently to
cut a thread that hardly bothers them and has many advantages -- those
of any friendly link with another country, at the least -- suggests not
confidence in their own achievement, but lack of it.
> I think Prince Charles was right in his criticism of modern architecture.
A lot of people feel that, but it can be awfully hard to make oneself
heard against the Establishment. Charles, as in many other areas, gives
a voice to that kind of sentiment, in a way that an elected politician
with too many backsides to kiss can never afford to, and that an
undemocratic tyrant wouldn't bother to. Even when one doesn't agree with
him, an independent voice in the corridors of power is always valuable.
Besides, he can do Goon imitations.
> Fashions in the arts come and go. If we get tired of looking at a painting,
> the museum can put it in the storeroom. But buildings can't be hidden and
> are there for a long time.
Although an awful lot of what went up in the Sixties is now coming down,
often a lot quicker than people would like! I could be more
philosophical about changing fashions if it wasn't for what has been
destroyed to make room for it, marvellous old quarters of beautiful
cities I know -- Edinburgh and Oxford, among them, and Paris. And they
had the nerve to tell us at the time that this was the future and we'd
better get to like it! Now it just looks shabby and trashy, in a tenth
the lifespan of what it replaced. There was that bloody architect -- was
it Louis Kahn? -- who decreed that to make a building (or anything else)
deliberately beautiful was a dastardly act. And he was slavishly
followed by hundreds of mediocrities, glad to be relieved of the
creative effort.
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown, out now -- Shadow of the Seer, the sixth Winter of
the World novel
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
REP
>
> Besides, he can do Goon imitations.
>
He's fallen in the water.
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk, wrote the following:
[snip]
> I believe some of the loony private-militia survivalists presently run
> on a conspiracy theory that H.M. is plotting to subvert and reconquer
> the USA....
I guess they need someone to be afraid of, now that the Communists are
declawed.
[snip]
>> Fashions in the arts come and go. If we get tired of looking at a painting,
>> the museum can put it in the storeroom. But buildings can't be hidden and
>> are there for a long time.
>
> Although an awful lot of what went up in the Sixties is now coming down,
> often a lot quicker than people would like! I could be more
> philosophical about changing fashions if it wasn't for what has been
> destroyed to make room for it, marvellous old quarters of beautiful
> cities I know -- Edinburgh and Oxford, among them, and Paris. And they
> had the nerve to tell us at the time that this was the future and we'd
> better get to like it! Now it just looks shabby and trashy, in a tenth
> the lifespan of what it replaced. There was that bloody architect -- was
> it Louis Kahn? -- who decreed that to make a building (or anything else)
> deliberately beautiful was a dastardly act. And he was slavishly
> followed by hundreds of mediocrities, glad to be relieved of the
> creative effort.
All of which serves to remind us that the postmodern staging of Wagner's
operas, which I think is absolutely monstrous and which is the norm
nowadays, is only part of a larger problem pervading all of the arts.
Many years ago I read a piece in the New Yorker about John Cage. I had
never heard of him, and when the writer described some of the things he did,
like putting screws between the piano strings, I became very suspicious.
Then there was a description of a performance of one of his piano works in
Brooklyn, in which the pianist was to be quite silent, and the only noises
the audience would hear would be the occasional cough and traffic noises
outside the hall. The writer went on to say that the pianist wrestled with
the problem of how to establish demarcations between the three movements,
and finally decided he would close the keyboard cover for a brief period to
show those pauses.
By then I was convinced that this was a work of satire, and a very good one.
But it turned out to be quite real.
I'd say the audience would have been justified in demanding their money
back, but of course they didn't do that. We can picture them filing out of
the concert hall quietly and thoughtfully, and no doubt some of them engaged
in serious conversations about the meaning of what they had witnessed.
Dick Partridge
Tauser
ORGAN / ASLSP by John Cage
The performance began on September 5, 2001 at the St. Burchardi Church in
Halberstadt, Germany....with a one and a half-year rest (all that could be
heard was the sound of the bellows being inflated). The first notes
(constituting an E major chord) were heard on February 5th, 2003 to be joined
by two more notes on July 5, 2005.
This work, originally composed to last 20 minutes, has been adopted by a group
of John Cage enthusiasts who have taken the composer’s directive “as slow
as possible” to heart......choosing 639 years as the duration for the piece
(based on the number of years since the first Blockwerk organ was inaugurated).
<< serious conversations about the meaning of what they had witnessed.
>><BR><BR>
this is the last flatulent expression from the Dada Movement, in my humble
opinion.
Tauser
Kimberley Cornish
I have been recovering from an operation and am therefore possibly in
a more grumpy state than usual, which might explain my reactions. On
browsing this website for the first time in a while, I came across the
following by Laon:
The particular passage in the above account of the Holy Grail that
aroused my ire was "The cup used at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-29,
mentioned also
in Mark, Luke and John), which can give people energy, and which
people should drink of, in remembrance of Jesus".
Now while this might be the account of some heretical modern
ultra-protestant sect, it is NOT the account of either the Latin or
Orthodox churches which formed western civilisation. It certainly has
nothing to do with Wagner and the Grail. Indeed, it is not even clear
what might be meant here by the "Biblical legend". There are numerous
details of Jesus' life believed by the faithful for millennia, that
are not recorded in the Gospels. I mention as an example, the names
Dismas and Gestas of the two thieves crucified with Jesus, for which
there is no non-apocryphal scriptural warrant, and the tradition that
Mary's family name was "Zion". Christians are enjoined by St Paul (II
Thessalonians 2:15) to "hold to the traditions which you were taught
by us, either by word of mouth or by letter", which passage implies
that there is a source of authority in the traditions of the Church
besides just the written word. The "Biblical legend" then, ought to
comprehend more than just what is recorded in the Bible. It is
therefore impetuous to claim as a later accretion by overly pious
medievals what might date back (by the "word of mouth" St Paul
mentions) to the event itself.
Now all over the world, from the Aztecs in Mexico through the native
religions of Africa and to pre-diaspora Judaism, divine worship
demanded a blood sacrifice. The Grail, whatever else we might think it
to have been, was minimally the cup used at the Last Supper, which
Jesus offered to his disciples with the words "This cup which is
poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood ..." There is a
tradition, traceable to at least medieval times that this very same
cup was used to collect Jesus' blood at the foot of the Cross. (More
pedantic grumpiness, Laon was wrong to write that Jesus "was taken
down from the
crucifix"; he was taken down from the CROSS, a crucifix being merely a
sculptured representation of the Crucifixion.)
That is, the Christian tradition was (and largely is) that the Holy
Grail was the physical cup that contained the actual blood of God
himself, just as Mary's title "Theotikos" or "God-bearer" meant that
her womb was the womb by which Yahweh was made flesh. The doctrine of
transubstantiation is that in the Eucharist, bread and wine become the
actual living flesh and blood of Almighty God, the eating and drinking
of which unites believers in "the body of Christ".
This, by the way, is the reason why Rauschning's presentation of what
he claimed were Hitler's beliefs of the Grail Knights - as a community
dedicated to the preservation of "pure blood" - has some internal
consistency and compulsion, with the "Volk" as the analogue of the
"Mystical body of Christ" - the one which all believers share in via
participation in the Eucharist. What unites the two ideas is the
concept of BLOOD, which is entirely lacking in Laon's passage which
construes the Eucharist merely as a ritual "which can give people
energy". It might indeed be, as Laon has earlier (well) argued, that
Rauschning's account of Hitler's Grail beliefs is a fraud, but it is
silly not to understand what its background is.
Now Wagner, too, knew his Christian doctrine. The Holy Grail was the
cup that held the blood of the incarnate God Almighty. It existed once
in Jerusalem. The Law of Conservation of Matter implies that it, or
its fragments, yet exist. Whatever the accretions of legend, it quite
certainly can't be dismissed as "just a story".
Sincerely,
Kimberley Cornish.
P.S. Should I comment on another of Laon's passages, I would run the
risk of appoplexy, so I simply quote it and leave the rest to reader's
sensibilities:
Kimberley Cornish
Correction: I posted a note on one of Laon's contributions a moment
ago in which I gave one of the titles of the Virgin Mary as
"Theotikos". This should have been "Theotokos".
Sincerely,
Kimberley Cornish
Derrick Everett
John Cage was honest enough to say (reportedly): "I have nothing to say
and I am saying it". Which might have been said by almost any modern
composer if they were as honest as Cage. Consider, as a comparison,
Richard Wagner. While he was not particularly honest -- sometimes
downright dishonest -- Wagner had plenty to say.
REP
>
> John Cage was honest enough to say (reportedly): "I have nothing to say
> and I am saying it". Which might have been said by almost any modern
> composer if they were as honest as Cage. Consider, as a comparison,
> Richard Wagner. While he was not particularly honest -- sometimes
> downright dishonest -- Wagner had plenty to say.
>
> --
> Derrick Everett (deverett at c2i.net)
> ==== Writing from 59°54'N 10°36'E ====
> http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/index.htm
>
>
Cage's words seems to run contrary to the very purpose of compositions of
chance and such modernity, something I see him as the founder of. It seems a
contradiction for him to say that he is saying nothing when so much stock is
put into the idea that this system of composition actually has profound
meaning behind it. Or maybe it's just his defenders that I'm thinking of,
and not Cage himself, who delude themselves into believing that there's
something of original value in these things.
I do hope, however, that this isn't a direct attack on modernism in music.
REP
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
Kimberley,
what you write I can but agree, but it is not all.
you may find more to the topic ongoing if you read through the posts
in
http://forums.gospelcom.net/view/hollywoodjesus/passion/
and
you may download The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ (762
KB -- PDF format)from
http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/index.htm.
read
The Chalice used at the Last Supper
and many more passages concerning the cup.
( BTW, this is not entirely remote from Wagner. The film and book are
based
on Clemens Brentano and A.C. Emmerick. Brentano was copublisher to
Joseph Goerres at their Heidelberg days, say 1806. Goerres is said to
have wept in delight when he receited from the Edda. He and Simrock
were mayor background influences of Wagner on the Edda. When Brentano
released his books on Jesus he got in conflict with the more
revolutionary thinking of Strauss` Jesus biography, Wagner was somehow
trapped in this scenario when he worked on his tribute to Jesus which
finally got incorporated in the Ring and Parsifal.)
You may not agree the cup existed before Jesus, but here it is
mentioned with Abraham at Ur. As you may know it came from Melchisedek
to Abraham, at Ur. Now if you could read what A.C.Emmerick has to say
about Melchisedek you would find it is similar to what Dr. Waddell
translated from the Edda about the cup, read more at
http://www.geocities.com/sa_ga_g/
and note the reference to 1 Moses 4.26 in relation to the cup. This is
evidence that it was connected with genealogy from Adam onwards, call
it grail or not, the meaning and purpose remains the same.
Peace
Richard Partridge
> 2
> ORGAN / ASLSP by John Cage
>
>
> The performance began on September 5, 2001 at the St. Burchardi Church in
> Halberstadt, Germany....with a one and a half-year rest (all that could be
> heard was the sound of the bellows being inflated). The first notes
> (constituting an E major chord) were heard on February 5th, 2003 to be joined
> by two more notes on July 5, 2005.
> This work, originally composed to last 20 minutes, has been adopted by a group
> of John Cage enthusiasts who have taken the composerąs directive łas slow
> as possible˛ to heart......choosing 639 years as the duration for the piece
> (based on the number of years since the first Blockwerk organ was
> inaugurated).
> << serious conversations about the meaning of what they had witnessed.
>>> <BR><BR>
>
> this is the last flatulent expression from the Dada Movement, in my humble
> opinion.
>
> Tauser
If they stick to that schedule, and I hope they do, we won't get to hear
very much of it.
Dick Partridge
Laon
And I hope you're feeling better, especially in the medical, but also
in the got-that-off-your-chest sense.
> The particular passage in the above account of the Holy Grail that
> aroused my ire was "The cup used at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-29,
> mentioned also > in Mark, Luke and John), which can give people energy, and which > people should drink of, in remembrance of Jesus".
> Now while this might be the account of some heretical modern
> ultra-protestant sect, it is NOT the account of either the Latin or
> Orthodox churches which formed western civilisation. It certainly has
> nothing to do with Wagner and the Grail.
I should acknowledge a key mistake, which was my initially saying that
the Grail, when it is associated with the New Testament, is more
associated with the cup used (in legend) by Joseph of Arimathea to
collect the blood of Jesus after the crucifixion, than with the cup
used (in the New Testament accounts) in the last supper. After more
reading this seems incorrect: the most common connection between the
grail legend and the New Testament, is the suggestion that the grail
was the cup used at the last supper.
That association (grail = cup used in Last Supper) seems to have first
been suggested in the late 12th century, in Robert de Boron's _Roman
de l'Estoire dou Graile_ (also called _Joseph d'Arimathea_),
apparently written some time between 1191 and 1220 (but probably
before 1200) CE.
Right now I can't find the earliest reference in which the grail was
said to be a cup in which Jesus' blood was collected by Joseph of
Arimathea after the crucifixion. But that version does seem to be
less common. Mostly, if the grail is going to be linked with a cup in
the New Testament at all (which is not always the case), then that cup
will generally be the one in the last supper. My mistake. Therefore
I'll accept that my post deserves criticism.
But my reference to the cup used in the last supper, emphasising
transfer of "energy" rather than blood, still seems to me to be
reasonably appropriate. That's given that my context was discussing
how that biblical passage contributed to, or was incorporated into,
the grail legend.
The common thread between grail myths and the cup in the last supper
seems to be the idea of the supply and transfer of energy, or I could
say "life force", or "sustenance". The common thread is not the idea
of a cup - in Wolfram, for example, the grail is a stone - nor the
idea of blood, transubstantiated or otherwise.
Connecting Jesus' blood to the grail seems to me to have arrived quite
late in the legend. Robert de Boron, for example, doesn't associate
the grail with Jesus' blood; Wolfram's version [1210s or thereabouts]
does have Jesus' blood in it, but the blood is associated with the
spear, not the graal.
So when writing about the cup in the last supper I focussed on the
idea of a ritual concerned with the giving of energy, because that's
what seems to me to be the nub of the matter.
Moreover, this does fit Wagner's scenario. Nobody receives any wine,
let alone transubstantiated blood (or real blood), from the Grail cup
in _Parsifal_. No-one drinks from the cup, or drinks anything that
has been in the cup. What they receive is energy.
In the Act I version of Wagner's Grail ceremony, the Grail is
uncovered, and then emits "a purple brilliance". While the grail is
emitting this radiant light, Amfortas picks it up and "proffers it on
every side", so that the glowing grail is pointed at all of the
knights and hangers-on. Then, while the Grail is still radiating its
light, Amfortas consecrates loaves of bread and two pitchers of wine,
also on the high table with him. After that, the knights and
hangers-on take communion, eating the bread and filling their cups
from the wine that was in the two pitchers (the wine they drink was
never in the grail).
There seem to me to be two ways of interpreting this: but in either
case Wagner is showing his Grail to be a source of radiant energy, and
not as a source even of "wine", let alone "blood".
The reading I prefer is that Amfortas was directly passing radiance,
or life-force, to the knights, squires, etc, when he "proffered the
grail on every side", making sure that everybody got an exposure to
that divine, purple, radiance. In this reading the taking of bread
and wine afterwards is merely ceremonial, and is not part of the
grail's delivery of life-force to the knights.
Alternatively, it could be said that the knights imbibed their
supernatural sustenance when they ate the bread and drank the wine.
But this still comes back to the grail emitting not wine, nor blood,
but rather energy: for the wine and food to have unusual properties,
those properties had to have come from the grail ceremony. And what
the grail did in that ceremony was glow: it radiated, and while it was
radiating Amfortas used it to consecrate the bread and wine. If the
bread and wine had unusual properties, compared to other bread and
wine used in a communion ceremony, then the source of those unusual
properties had to be the energy radiated from the grail. Nothing else
came from the Grail: only light, only visible energy.
> It is > therefore impetuous to claim as a later accretion by overly pious
> medievals what might date back (by the "word of mouth" St Paul
> mentions) to the event itself.
Well, the idea that the grail might be the cup used in the last supper
"might" date back to the last supper. But since (as far as I know)
the earliest known mention of the grail dates back to around 1190 CE,
in Chretien de Troyes, it's highly unlikely that there is a continuous
tradition going back to eye-witnesses at the last supper. Such an
important story, but no-one wrote it down for over 1,000 years? I
don't think so.
Moreover, in Chretien de Troyes' version the grail is something
wonderful and mysterious, that gives sustenance and is associated with
the Celtic Arthurian cycle, but it's not linked to the cup in the last
supper. The first writer to link the grail to the last supper seems
to be Robert de Boron, writing just a little bit later than Chretien,
and apparently not earlier than 1191.
Conclusions? The grail of legend isn't always a cup, or even
container of any kind. The grail first turned up in a Celtic context,
the Arthurian myths, and was only later connected to the cup used in
the last supper. The time lag was very small, between the first
written reference to a grail and the Christianisation of the myth, by
Robert de Boron; but the original reference was not about a last
supper cup.
Moreover, even when the grail is connected with the cup used in the
last supper, it isn't necessarily said to be full of Jesus' blood,
whether actual blood (crucifixion) or transubstantiated blood (last
supper). It seems more common for the legends to explicitly link
Jesus' blood to the spear, rather than to the grail.
Finally, given that the first known mention of the grail is about 1190
CE, or about 1162 years after the last supper (if we assume the last
supper took place in 28CE), the legend is unlikely to be an oral
tradition passed down by eye-witnesses at the last supper but not
previously committed to writing.
Three last points.
Kimberley said:
> The Holy Grail was the > cup that held the blood of the incarnate God Almighty. It existed once > in Jerusalem. The Law of Conservation of Matter implies that it, or > its fragments, yet exist. Whatever the accretions of legend, it quite > certainly can't be dismissed as "just a story".
But that's true only if:
(1) you assume that the grail of legend is a vessel of some sort, and
then further assume that it is the same vessel as the cup allegedly
used at the last supper; but there's no compelling force requiring one
to make those two assumptions;
(2) you further assume that there was a historical event that roughly
corresponded to the New Testament accounts of "the last supper", and
that at that supposed meal a cup was used as described in Matthew and
other New Testament accounts. However, while most Christians accept
the veracity of the New Testament accounts of the last supper, it is
possible to be Christian and yet not accept those accounts as
historical in the way the word "historical" is usually understood.
And non-Christians have no obligation at all to treat New Testament
stories as historical.
The historical as opposed to religious value of the New Testament
isn't remotely a topic for this board. I'm just saying that you can't
present a New Testament story as historical fact in a secular forum.
Second, Kimberley made the point that I was wrong to refer to Jesus
being taken down from the crucifix, because Jesus was on a cross, not
a crucifix. I could claim the usage authority of the traditional
song, "The Seven Joys of Mary": "The next good joy that Mary had, it
was the joy of six;/To see her own son Jesus Christ, upon the
crucifix." Or I could admit that I seem to have sinned against the
rule that "crucifix" means a representation of the cross or of Jesus
on the cross but not the cross itself. Oh sod it: Kimberley is quite
right, unlike me.
Finally, Kimberley avoided apoplexy by not commenting on this:
> (We don't have many holy grails down New Zealand way, by the way; but
> I do have a piece of wood from the original tekoteko of Ihenga, which
> I think is even better.)
I'm not sure why this would cause apoplexy. I was making the point
that lots of cultures have relics, or long-lost artefacts, and I see
no special reason to take one more seriously than another. Except to
the extent that Wagner used the Grail myth but didn't know much about
Ihenga; but parts of the grail discussion have gone beyond a merely
Wagnerian frame, so I can make a wider point about whose culture's
myths we decide are important.
The tekoteko of Ihenga is a legendary artefact from my part of the
world. Ihenga was a historical or legendary explorer of New Zealand,
and his tekoteko is, or would be, a wooden post carved to represent an
ancestor. (If you see the current New Zealand film _The Whale Rider_,
which I recommend, the carving of a red-brown man riding a blue whale
featured in that film is an example of a tekoteko.)
There is a tekoteko depicting Ihenga at a marae at Rotorua, but Ihenga
didn't carve it. (And if I really had a piece of it, certain people
would have a piece of me; I was kidding about that.) But there's a
legend that refers to posts carved by Ihenga, and those posts are long
lost. If they ever existed, and they had survived, and they were
found, in my part of the world they would be relics of enormous
spiritual, cultural and even political significance. I was making the
point that there's nothing unique about long-lost relics, and no
reason why I should take one culture's more seriously than another's.
Also, Maori tend not to fabricate their relics, which is more than can
be said for the medieval Europeans who synthesised the grail story.
(They also synthesised a few grails: I mentioned there's one in Genoa.
It's at San Lorenzo's.)
Cheers!
Laon
Laon
or at least the grail in Wagner's _Parsifal_. Wagner identifies the
grail (through Gurnemantz' words in Act I) as the vessel used in the
last supper and also used by Joseph of Arimathea to collect Jesus'
blood after he was taken down from the cross. So there is blood
indeed, in the back-story of Wagner's grail.
But, despite a lot of over-heated Wagner commentary to the contrary,
Wagner doesn't put any references to blood in the grail's present
story. Nothing.
I mentioned that the grail, in Wagner, works not by transference of
blood or flesh, but by radiance, by energy. What I've thought,
further from that, is that Wagner's grail ceremony is not a part of
communion but an alternative to communion. Wagner's grail ceremony is
a redemption from the world of sacrifices of flesh and blood.
This theory, which I'm expounding now, is in the thinking-aloud
category, and not something I've fully worked out.
On the surface it seems that the grail ceremony takes place at a
communion ceremony, so it could be said that it reinforces the usual
idea of communion, as transubstantiation of vegetable matter (bread,
wine) into meat: flesh, and blood. That's the usual interpretative
line.
But in reality the grail ceremony seems to be independent of, and
different from, the communion ceremony. The grail ceremony happens a
little before the communion ceremony, and it is clear that the real
magic (represented by the glowing of the Grail) has happened before
the communion ceremony has started.
That is, Wagner's stage directions indicate that the grail has stopped
its channeling of the divine _before_ the commununion ceremony begins
and the knights come up to claim their bread and wine.
At other times, we are told, Amfortas is stubborn and refuses to carry
out the grail ceremony. In those cases it seems there is no
sustenance for the knights, who are sick and hungry for the sustenance
brought by the grail, by the time we meet them again in Act III. But
in the meantime the knights have come together many times, and
presumably they have taken communion.
In the communion ceremony, traditionally, there is a symbolic change
of material vegetable products into blood and meat. (This is not an
idea calculated to fill the adult Wagner with much enthusiasm.)
And what we see in Act III is that communion ceremony does not work,
and does not sustain the grail knights. It does not have the power to
keep Titurel alive or the other knights from ageing. They need the
grail ceremony, because it is, symbolically, a transformation of
divine energy directly into their life forces.
As something that is expressable only by light, and visible only as
light, the radiance and energy given by the grail is more rarefied
even than vegetable products. Certainly it is more ethereal than the
symbolic meat and blood of the normal Christian communion.
So what Wagner's grail is celebrating is not the flow of blood, as so
many commentators have said, but rather a rarification of religious
imagery so that blood is replaced with energy of a higher and more
non-physical kind. That is, so far from revelling in ideas of blood,
Wagner's _Parsifal_ takes a myth in which blood plays a central role,
and then rarefies the blood out of the myth, so that it is absent from
the drama: instead of blood we get divine radiance, symbolised as a
purple stage light.
No blood in Wagner's grail ceremonies: quite the opposite.
That's my thought for today. Actually, on further thought I've
convinced myself, so I'll claim it as a perception.
On a less serious topic, there's the question of the present
whereabouts of the holy grail. As well the holy grail, which I was
shown in San Lorenzo's in Genoa, I remember being shown the holy grail
in a church in Venice, though I can't find any references to that
Venetian holy grail on the net just now. But the secrecy must mean
that the Venetian holy grail was the real thing. So is the holy grail
buried under the statue of "religion", or "faith", at the Gran Madre
di Dio at Turin. And the holy grail is also (of course) buried and
ready for collection at the Chalice Well at Glastonbury. The holy
grail, on the other hand, is stored at the cathedral at Montserrat,
northwest of Barcelona. But the holy grail, or Santo Caliz, is on
display at the Capilla del Santo Caliz, at Valencia. I understand an
eccentric 19th century amateur philologist, Laurence Waddell, bought
the holy grail off Prof HV Hilprecht (nice of him to sell it), who
found it in Mesopotamia.
I hope all the owners of the different holy grails (I'm sure there are
many more) get together and sort this out. Perhaps the best approach
would be a reality TV competition along the lines of _Survivor_. As
with _Survivor_, it would be reasonable to conclude that the winner
had divine favour. Music not, I hope, by Richard Wagner.
Cheers!
Laon
Derrick Everett
>
> I should acknowledge a key mistake, which was my initially saying that
> the Grail, when it is associated with the New Testament, is more
> associated with the cup used (in legend) by Joseph of Arimathea to
> collect the blood of Jesus after the crucifixion, than with the cup used
> (in the New Testament accounts) in the last supper. After more reading
> this seems incorrect: the most common connection between the grail
> legend and the New Testament, is the suggestion that the grail was the
> cup used at the last supper.
>
> That association (grail = cup used in Last Supper) seems to have first
> been suggested in the late 12th century, in Robert de Boron's _Roman de
> l'Estoire dou Graile_ (also called _Joseph d'Arimathea_), apparently
> written some time between 1191 and 1220 (but probably before 1200) CE.
It is not certain that Robert de Boron wrote his "Joseph of Arimathea" (or
"le Roman de l'Estoire dou Graal", probably written in the last decade of
the 12th century) in the knowledge of Chrétien's unfinished poem
"Perceval or the Story of the Grail". Neither of these authors claimed to
be breaking new ground, since Chrétien in his dedicatory prologue refers
to a book given to him by his patron Philip of Flanders, while de Boron
refers to a "high book" as his source and says that much has been written
about the Fisher King. Neither Chrétien's book nor de Boron's "high book"
necessarily exist, any more than Wolfram's source Kyot/Guiot, since some
scholars see these references to pre-existing source material as merely a
literary device. If there were older poems about the Grail, either they
have not survived or they have not been found yet. We cannot say for
certain, therefore, whether the association of a "graal" with the cup used
at the Last Supper originated with de Boron; only that his "Joseph" is the
oldest surviving poem (there is only one manuscript extant of the poem but
several of a prose version) to make this association.
> Right now I can't find the earliest reference in which the grail was
> said to be a cup in which Jesus' blood was collected by Joseph of
> Arimathea after the crucifixion.
It is in de Boron's "Joseph":
"And then [Joseph] remembered his vessel and thought the drops of blood
that were falling would be better in the vessel than elsewhere. So he
placed it beneath Christ's wounds; and blood from the wounds in his hands
and his feet dripped into the vessel." (The prose "Joseph", tr. Nigel
Bryant, page 19)
> But that version does seem to be less common. Mostly, if the grail is
> going to be linked with a cup in the New Testament at all (which is not
> always the case), then that cup will generally be the one in the last
> supper. My mistake. Therefore I'll accept that my post deserves
> criticism.
>
> But my reference to the cup used in the last supper, emphasising
> transfer of "energy" rather than blood, still seems to me to be
> reasonably appropriate. That's given that my context was discussing how
> that biblical passage contributed to, or was incorporated into, the
> grail legend.
>
> The common thread between grail myths and the cup in the last supper
> seems to be the idea of the supply and transfer of energy, or I could
> say "life force", or "sustenance". The common thread is not the idea of
> a cup - in Wolfram, for example, the grail is a stone - nor the idea of
> blood, transubstantiated or otherwise.
"The boys who carried the candlesticks were handsome indeed. In each
candlestick burned ten candles at the very least. A girl who came in with
the boys, fair and comely and beautifully adorned, was holding a grail
between her hands. When she entered holding the grail, so brilliant a
light appeared that the candles lost their brightness like the stars or
the moon when the sun rises. After her came another girl, carrying a
silver trencher. The grail, which went ahead, was made of fine, pure
gold; and in it were set precious stones of many kinds, the richest and
most precious in the earth or sea; those in the grail surpassed all other
jewels, without a doubt." (Perceval or the Story of the Grail, tr. Nigel
Bryant, page 35)
> Connecting Jesus' blood to the grail seems to me to have arrived quite
> late in the legend. Robert de Boron, for example, doesn't associate the
> grail with Jesus' blood; Wolfram's version [1210s or thereabouts] does
> have Jesus' blood in it, but the blood is associated with the spear, not
> the graal.
Not quite right, see above. Wolfram's identification of the spear with
the one that pierced the side of Jesus follows the first Continuation to
Chrétien's "Perceval":
"It is the very lance with which the son of God, undoubtedly, was struck
in the side, right to the heart, on the day when He was hung on the cross.
The one who struck Him was called Longinus ..." (First Continuation, tr.
Nigel Bryant, page 132)
<snip>
>
> Finally, given that the first known mention of the grail is about 1190
> CE, or about 1162 years after the last supper (if we assume the last
> supper took place in 28CE), the legend is unlikely to be an oral
> tradition passed down by eye-witnesses at the last supper but not
> previously committed to writing.
>
>
It might be worth noting that this was towards the end of the first
century of Crusades. During that century crusaders had returned to Europe
with relics; such as the bones of saints, or phials of blood, or splinters
from the True Cross. The cross had been discovered in Jerusalem, or so at
least it was believed, and was carried into battle with the army of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem, until it was lost when that army was defeated by
Saladin at Hattin in 1187. It might not be coincidence that, immediately
the news of that defeat reached Europe, a new and even more powerful relic
was described by de Boron and by Chrétien.
Tauser
> have Jesus' blood in it, but the blood is associated with the spear, not
> the graal. >>
sign referring to their determination to battle against the Saxon
invaders....and Wolfram picked it up unknowingly.
Tauser
Mike Scott Rohan
from "REP" <loIr...@Iolrqapq.com> contains these words:
Nee-hee!
Mike Scott Rohan
from k_co...@msn.com.au (Kimberley Cornish) contains these words:
{snip}
> Now Wagner, too, knew his Christian doctrine. The Holy Grail was the
> cup that held the blood of the incarnate God Almighty. It existed once
> in Jerusalem. The Law of Conservation of Matter implies that it, or
> its fragments, yet exist. Whatever the accretions of legend, it quite
> certainly can't be dismissed as "just a story".
It certainly can be and indeed is, by agnostics, atheists and other
non-Christians -- but by Christians first of all. Indeed, it would be
hard to suggest an area in which there is more natural agreement, albeit
from different directions. The Grail business is not a legitimate part
of the doctrine or dogma of any Christian church, and belief in it is
not encouraged, to my knowledge, by any religious authority -- not least
because of the tale's transparently pagan origins and the cranky and
often sinister beliefs that surround it, past and present.
> Sincerely,
> Kimberley Cornish.
> P.S. Should I comment on another of Laon's passages, I would run the
> risk of appoplexy, so I simply quote it and leave the rest to reader's
> sensibilities:
> > (We don't have many holy grails down New Zealand way, by the way; but
> > I do have a piece of wood from the original tekoteko of Ihenga, which
> > I think is even better.)
A Christian shouldn't have apoplexy over that, surely? If you're going
to have a manufactured religious relic, better it's a pagan one.
Derrick Everett
According to R.S.Loomis the origin of the spear, which appears in the
Grail romances, is to be found in Irish stories (echtrae) in which it
appears as the powerfully destructive weapon of the god Lug. In one of
those stories the spear is seen with its head immersed in a cauldron of
blood. This is a precedent for Wagner's spear which "goes with the Grail
... the two are complementary" (The Brown Book, entry for 2nd September
1865). It might be worth investigating when Wagner first read Irish
legends; his Bayreuth library contains some volumes of Irish "Märchen und
Legenden" which had been published in the late 1840's.
Richard Partridge
[snip]
> I hope all the owners of the different holy grails (I'm sure there are
> many more) get together and sort this out.
[snip]
When the President of the United States signs into law a bill he thinks is
important, there is likely to be a ceremony at the White House to which the
Congressmen who helped pass it are invited. On the desk in front of him the
President will have a dozen or more pens. He uses each one to form part of
a letter in his name, and then gives it to one of the guests. This way each
of the favored politicians can have an heirloom for his children: the pen
the President used to sign the XXX law.
Do you think something like that could have happened?
Dick Partridge
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
You mean with Bush?
reminds on a recent post at
Godlike Productions
http://66.242.35.139/bbs/message.php?message=35904&topic=3
Bush愀 "Christian" Blood Cult - Concerns Raised by the Vatican
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen04222003.html
The Pope thinks 9-11 was an inside job
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B51923D64
Kimberley Cornish
Laon wrote:
> In the communion ceremony, traditionally, there is a symbolic change
> of material vegetable products into blood and meat.
Sorry to dwell on this, but that AIN'T traditional doctrine and
putting it this way is to rule out understanding the history of
Europe. The traditional belief of the Church in the West was (and
is)that in the ritual performance of the Mass by a consecrated priest,
at the elevation of the host, it becomes literally flesh, Christ's
flesh - with nothing symbolic about it. Likewise, at the elevation of
the chalice, the wine therein becomes literally Christ's blood. That
is, there is no longer either bread or wine physically present. To
counter the "Emperor's new clothes" argument, that there certainly
APPEARS to be bread and wine present, the reply has always been that
though the flesh and blood is indeed there under the appearance of
bread and wine, the appearance ain't what it really is.
Now the history of sixteenth centeenth Europe is only understood when
it is realised that prior to what Luther unleashed, this doctrine was
really believed in by the vast majority of the European population.
Indeed, The protestant reformation can be seen as nothing but the
"emperor's new clothes" argument put forward by those who rejected
lock stock and barrel this very central mystery of the Christian
faith. Luther himself was ambivalent about it, but it is only amongst
core protestants (among which Anglicans cannot be included) that the
Eucharist is regarded as "symbolic".
We avoid viewing the matter as a mere storm in a teacup when we
reflect that religious wars over this and related issues devastated
Europe for at least a hundred years. The Roman Catholic Church has
quite certainly never changed on this point of doctrine. To call the
eucharistic change "symbolic" is nothing but a presentation of
protestant views presented as though that is what the ritual has all
along been, when the truth is precisely the opposite.
In the traditional doctrine, partaking in this feast of divine flesh
and blood is what brings eternal life - union in the "Mystical body of
Christ". The connection of this to the material in Act III is
palpable.
My objection to Laon's original post about the Eucharist as giving
"energy" is that it makes the central Christian mystery akin to
drinking lucozade after a particularly strenuous game of squash. It
totally misunderstands the religious import of what is going on. The
Aztecs used to cut out the hearts of their sacrificial victims and
then eat the flesh of the bodies. It was the identity of what was
going on in Mexico - the unholy parody - with the most sacred
Christian ritual that so horrified the Spaniards. My advice is to use
the Aztec model to begin to approach the Eucharist rather than the
protestant "commemorative meal".
On the wine and blood issue, incidentally, the tradition that the
communion cup of the Last Supper was the very same cup that tradition
has receiving the dripping blood from Christ's body, fits perfectly
with doctrine. We have a sort of miracle sacrificial sequence: water
turned into wine at the marriage at Cana of Galilee (the very first
miracle) followed by wine turned into the blood from the sacrificial
victim Who saves the world at the Crucifixion (the very last miracle).
The Holy Grail, that is, held both wine and the blood of the
sacrificed God.
I should also mention that while transubstantiation is believed to
occur at the elevation of the host and the chalice, it is not merely
the elevation that effects the change. The elevation must occur in the
context of a eucharistic ritual for the change to be effected. That
is, when does the Eucharist begin? Not with elevation, but prior to
that. The following passage from Laon's post ought to be seen in this
context:
This strikes me as a misinterpretation of what Wagner intended, though
I will not present my own half-baked ideas of what I think he actually
intended here. (One must always be prudent about the pack gathering.)
I conclude this post with a few verses from a well-known poem of Sir
John Betjeman:
And is it true? and is it true?
The most tremendous tale of all,
Seen in a stained-glass window's hue,
A Baby in an ox's stall?
The Maker of the stars and sea
Become a Child on earth for me?
And is it true? For if it is,
No loving fingers tying strings
Around those tissued fripperies,
The sweet and silly Christmas things,
Bath salts and inexpensive scent
And hideous tie so kindly meant.
No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with this single Truth compare -
That God was Man in Palestine
And lives to-day in Bread and Wine.
Sincerely,
Kimberley Cornish
Kimberley Cornish
Mike Scott Rohan <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<200305121...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk>...
> The message <c3b9b7e5.03050...@posting.google.com>
> from k_co...@msn.com.au (Kimberley Cornish) contains these words:
>
> {snip}
>
> > Now Wagner, too, knew his Christian doctrine. The Holy Grail was the
> > cup that held the blood of the incarnate God Almighty. It existed once
> > in Jerusalem. The Law of Conservation of Matter implies that it, or
> > its fragments, yet exist. Whatever the accretions of legend, it quite
> > certainly can't be dismissed as "just a story".
>
> It certainly can be and indeed is, by agnostics, atheists and other
> non-Christians -- but by Christians first of all. Indeed, it would be
> hard to suggest an area in which there is more natural agreement, albeit
> from different directions. The Grail business is not a legitimate part
> of the doctrine or dogma of any Christian church, and belief in it is
> not encouraged, to my knowledge, by any religious authority -- not least
> because of the tale's transparently pagan origins and the cranky and
> often sinister beliefs that surround it, past and present.
Which part is just a story? - That Jesus used a cup at the Last
Supper, or the Law of Conservation of Matter? There might be grounds
for legitimate doubt about Jesus was God, of course, but given the
truth that Jesus used a cup, it is a scientific certainty that its
material yet survives. Any "agnostics, atheists or other
non-Christians" who deny this would simply be ignorant of the laws of
Physics.
Any Catholic who denied that Jesus used a cup at the Last Supper,
while admittedly not denying a formal article of the Faith, would, for
all that, be at odds with the Eucharistic ritual "On the night He was
betrayed, He took the cup ..." It's a bit hard to be a Christian,
commune and yet deny it, isn't it? Given the present sorry state of
the Church, I suppose all things are possible, but I rather hope such
stupidities haven't infected this website.
Sincereley,
Kimberley Cornish.
Mike Scott Rohan
> Dear Group,
There is no "truth" that Jesus used a cup. There is no certainty
whatsoever that such a person existed, let alone had divine origins, or
that, if He did, there was ever such an event as the Last Supper.
Understand, I am not in fact querying either of these things and have no
intention of arguing about them now; I am simply saying that you cannot
cite them as truths. If you could, religious schisms would never have
taken place. They are articles of faith for which I have great respect
and sympathy, but they must be regarded as such. And even allowing the
Last Supper took place, there is no guarantee anything was drunk from a
"cup" by anyone present; the word cup is a mere convenient translation,
and could refer to a number of things. They could have been using a
great range of drinking vessels, bowls of wood or local pottery or some
common imported ware such as Samian, or beakers of horn or, in a rich
household, of Middle Eastern glass. They need not even have been
personal; it would also not be unusual in such a culture to have
communal bowls, shared with neighbours or passed down the table. Any of
this would allow the Biblical tale to be true without involving one
actual cup of the Grail's nature. And from a religious standpoint it may
be significant that the resulting belief concentrates on the act, rather
than the object, which would be idolatrous. One can add that the nature
of crucifixion and the site of the coup de grace also makes it a little
hard to imagine any cup of any kind being used to catch shed blood.
There is therefore no "truth" which science could support. In any case,
your habit of capitalizing the names of scientific laws and disciplines
looks cranky, suggesting a rather old-fashioned unfamiliarity with them
which makes relying on "the laws of Physics" inadvisable. For one thing
-- and there are many more! -- any such cup need only have survived as
matter in a sense. It need not survive as anything recognisable or
indeed individual. Its constituent atoms could easily have been parts of
a great many other things since, and be scattered across the world.
Depending on its original material, they could be part of the Forth
bridge, a dungheap or your own coccyx. And if caught in an atomic power
plant or some other atom-smasher, they could have been reduced to lesser
particles flying in all directions, perhaps out into space, or
recombined with other particles in different atoms. The story may be
true, nonetheless, but your "scientific certainties" don't guarantee it.
> Any Catholic who denied that Jesus used a cup at the Last Supper,
> while admittedly not denying a formal article of the Faith, would, for
> all that, be at odds with the Eucharistic ritual "On the night He was
> betrayed, He took the cup ..." It's a bit hard to be a Christian,
> commune and yet deny it, isn't it? Given the present sorry state of
> the Church, I suppose all things are possible, but I rather hope such
> stupidities haven't infected this website.
Not at all. A Christian merely has to admit the former existence and use
of the cup, and the meaning of the ritual. He is not obliged to believe
in the cup's nature, subsequent fate or any other aspect of the myths
surrounding it. Indeed, as they amount to what any church would define
as gnostic belief, a secretive power stemming from folklore and not from
any accepted revelation, he is strictly forbidden to do so. I'm afraid
that any Church would count such a literal belief in the Grail as an
even more pernicious stupidity than many aspects of modern theology.
It's a story, man, a literary invention! I'm reminded of M.R.James's
black magician, who appeared to treat the Golden Bough and the Golden
Legend as equally valuable, and to believe both
.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
your opinion: sorry, Jesus is not a fact
is the same as David Icke in the context of the topic of this board.
Icke rebukes the Priory of Sion grail bloodline with this argument
tracing Jesus as a myth originated by the Piso family. This has been
dealt with at some websites, just as the notion of others that JC was
really Julius Ceasar. Arguing like this, everything is possible, but
it is not scientific either. There is more evidence that Jesus did
exist rather than not, although strictly speaking acc. to John and
Revelations to believe that : In the beginning there was the Logos is
surely as fundamental a part of the believe as Jesus Himself, being
not a person that existed but an eternal God.
Following the apostolic letter of Jude reg. Priesthood, it was agreed
that Jesus served as Highpriest in the Order of Melchisedek rather
than a priest Aaron, like John the Baptist.In this sense Jesus has
ever been associated with a traditional cup of an unbloody sacrifice.
Laon
> In the communion ceremony, traditionally, there is a symbolic change
> of material vegetable products into blood and meat.
Kimberley's objection was to my use of the word "symbolic".
He argues that a culture once believed and many people still believe
that the communion ceremony is not merely a symbolic transformation
from vegetable matter to flesh and blood, but an actual physical
change.
I have to agree that Kimberley is quite correct. There has been
argument over whether the wafer and wine is symbolic of Jesus' flesh
and blood, or whether it literally actually turns into real meat and
real blood. And I also agree that this argument has been important in
history.
But when I think of such disputes, I tend to think of the account in
Gibbon, describing the vicious fighting between those who thought the
Trinity was all the same being, and those who thought the trinity was
three connected beings made of the same stuff: the Christian
homoousians and the Christian homoiousians.
I cite from memory an account in Gibbon of the inhabitants of a
Christian homoioussian village being attacked by a party of devout
Christian homoussians, who were not just splattered with the blood of
the occupants of the previous (homoiussian) village, but actually
wearing the intestines of those men, women and children round their
torsos, as they brought fire and the sword to another village.
The passionate historical struggle between these two groups
conveniently boils down to the "i" that is present in the word
"homoioussian", and absent in the word for the other faction,
"homooussian". That "i" gave us the expression, "It doesn't matter
one iota." Such things are historically important, without being all
that respectable in another sense.
But Kimberley is right: some people thought the change symbolic, while
others thought it was literal, and they felt passionately about the
difference. Fortunately, the dispute seems to be more important in
history than it is in relation to discussing what the grail ceremony
in _Parsifal_ means.
And it seems to me that Kimberley's valid point about my error of
wording can be dealt with with a small wording change.
I said:
> In the communion ceremony, traditionally, there is a symbolic change
> of material vegetable products into blood and meat.
That's wrong. I should have said:
> In the communion ceremony, traditionally, there is a change of material
> vegetable products into blood and meat. Some Christians think it's a literal
> change while others think it is symbolic.
Having made that minor wording change, I don't see any reason to make
any other changes to my post.
My argument is that the Grail, in Wagner in particular, radiates
energy rather than gushes blood. That is what it seems to do in
Wagner's operatic text, _Parsifal_. My argument still stands, with
that wording change. It seems otherwise unaffected by Kimberley's
valid point that Catholicism took the doctrine of transubstantiation
literally. (It's relevant, here, to remember Wagner's opinion of
Catholicism: to say the least, it was not positive.)
Certainly, my reading of Wagner's libretto leads me to conclude that
we are being shown, in the Grail ceremony, a process that is
spiritual, in Wagner's terms, concerning matters of energy. I feel
fairly confident that Wagner was not, in writing the librtetto of
_Parsifal_, concerned with the fleshly, including ritualistic beliefs
about turning bread into flesh.
Vis-a-vis the Betjeman quote, I'd cite some lines from _Prometheus
Unbound_, in which the Furies suggest to the chained Prometheus what
Jesus would have made of some aspects of Christian doctrine:
"One came forth, of gentle worth
Smiling on the sanguine earth;
His words outliveth him, like swift poison
Withering up truth, peace and pity.
Look! Where round the wide horizon
Many a million-people city
Vomits smoke into the bright air.
Hark that outcry of despair!
'Tis his mild and gentle ghost
Wailing for the faith he kindled."
(At least I didn't quote Keats' "Sonnet Written in Disgust of Popular
Superstition".) I think that Wagner's feelings, vis-a-vis, Jesus,
were similar: that Wagner thought that Jesus had an important moral
message, but one that he [Wagner] wanted to divorce from the trappings
of the religion that grew up around Jesus.
Cheers!
Laon
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> Laon wrote:
I think that Wagner's feelings, vis-a-vis, Jesus,
> were similar: that Wagner thought that Jesus had an important moral
> message, but one that he [Wagner] wanted to divorce from the trappings
> of the religion that grew up around Jesus.
This could end up in an everlasting debate. Fact is rather that Wagner
incooperated pius, miraculous, supernatural circumstances whereever
he could i.g. the reincarnations of Kundry, transition to space and
time, selecting the Cathedral of Siena, refraining from applause after
the first act of Parsifal.
Wagner lived in the intense catholic atmosphere of Bavaria (Bayreuth),
with Abbč Liszt, or Venice ( 120 churches)- roman catholisism was at
his very doorstep every day and Wagner never indicated any sympathies
to freemasonry to push his career, which he would have if he were
anti-catholic.
Rearding the supernatural communion and the chalise let`s see how
actor Mel Gibson refreshes upon it next year in The Passion:
http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=16
quote:
Gibson co-wrote his ode to Christ with Ben Fitzgerald ("Wise Blood"),
using scripture taken directly from the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John, or as Gibson likes to refer to them, "four obscure writers."
He also used research from an old book in his library, "The Dolorous
Passion" by Anne Catherine Emmerich. "I'm not kiddin' the book
practically jumped out of the bookshelf at me. I bought this old
library of books with some old tomes in there and I reach up for a
title and pulled it out, and the one next to it fell into my hands so
I started reading it. That book is the one I'm using for the
background of this film." After nearly ten years of writing, reworking
the script and waiting for the right timing, his "labor of love" was
ready to be made.
end of quote.
Peace
Kimberley Cornish
A gentle answer turneth away wrath - and ire and grumpiness. We ought
to invent a term for Laon's style, which is quite distinctive.
"Laonic", perhaps? Whatever it is, it's civilised, urbane, tolerant
and soothing to the soul.
Whatever it is, I like it. On the other hand, I think it also tends
too much to dismiss as foolish, issues that very intelligent men once
fought over. The Monotheletist heresy over the exact nature of the
Divine Will once split the Byzantine empire. Did Jesus and The Father
share the same Will or were there two distinct individual Wills? Lo
and behold, well over a thousand years later, Schopenhauer claimed
there is only one Will for everybody, and soon we have Hitlerian
notions of a shared "Aryan racial will" unifying only those of correct
ancestry. Same issue, but appled to Man rather than God. That is, I
think that issues concerning the Divine Nature invariably resurface as
issues concerning the true nature of Man.
The controversy between the homoousians and the homoiousians sounds
silly now, but it is surely just the twentith century issue of
individuality versus collectivity. As Laon puts it:
> But when I think of such disputes, I tend to think of the account in
> Gibbon, describing the vicious fighting between those who thought the
> Trinity was all the same being, and those who thought the trinity was
> three connected beings made of the same stuff: the Christian
> homoousians and the Christian homoiousians.
Doctrine decided on three distinct Persons in One God. Gibbon, of
course, very wittily ridiculed the importance of the issue. But in the
twentieth cenury, those less respectful of determinations of heresy
came to power in the Soviet Union and turned it into an abattoir.
Their claim that the human sense of individuality is only a product of
false consciousness of class, was used to legitimise the charnel
house. The ancient issue of the true nature of God had simply sprung
up in another form. Three individual Persons in God or a collectivity
of non-distinct beings? This was a problem for the Byzantines and a
ha-ha for Gibbon, but what about Russia as a democracy of individuals
or as a union of collectivised soviets? This actually concerned US as
a real problem - totalitarian hell for the Russians, unfortunately and
a ha-ha for absolutely nobody. Luckily we were spared a modern Gibbon
tactless enough to laugh at it, because we all understood that the
issue really mattered. It is still of pivotal importance in China and
North Korea. The sacred and the profane issues are NOT distinct and
they certainly matter a good deal more than an iota. Religious issues
are important. Their inner logic is not always obvious, but it's depth
makes them rise time after time in other forms.
On Wagner's feelings, vis-a-vis, Jesus, Laon writes:
...
> Wagner thought that Jesus had an important moral
> message, but one that he [Wagner] wanted to divorce from the trappings
> of the religion that grew up around Jesus.
I think it was a bit more than that, though it is certainly true that
Wagner opposed the trappings of religion. Wagner described Jesus as
"divine" somewhere (I'll try to dig up the reference if anyone wants
it) so it has to be that Wagner thought a bit more than simply that
Jesus had an important moral message.
All this said, we probably aren't much further advanced in our
understanding of the Eucharist in "Parsifal". Perhaps I should just
have been a bit less grumpy in the first place.
Regards,
Kimberley Cornish
Mike Scott Rohan
from sa_...@yahoo.co.in (sa_...@yahoo.co.in) contains these words:
This is gibberish.
Mike Scott Rohan
> pra...@presto.net.au (Laon) wrote in message
> news:<4f8f3beb.0305...@posting.google.com>...
> > Laon wrote:
> I think that Wagner's feelings, vis-a-vis, Jesus,
> > were similar: that Wagner thought that Jesus had an important moral
> > message, but one that he [Wagner] wanted to divorce from the trappings
> > of the religion that grew up around Jesus.
> This could end up in an everlasting debate. Fact is rather that Wagner
> incooperated pius, miraculous, supernatural circumstances whereever
> he could i.g. the reincarnations of Kundry, transition to space and
> time, selecting the Cathedral of Siena, refraining from applause after
> the first act of Parsifal.
> Wagner lived in the intense catholic atmosphere of Bavaria (Bayreuth),
> with Abbč Liszt, or Venice ( 120 churches)- roman catholisism was at
> his very doorstep every day and Wagner never indicated any sympathies
> to freemasonry to push his career, which he would have if he were
> anti-catholic.
Not "would"; the most you could ever say of a vague deduction like that
is "might". And it would still be wrong. Wagner's pantheistic beliefs,
interest in Buddhism etc., would have been quite incompatible with the
atheistic, quasi-magical tradition of Continental Freemasonry at the
time. It would be equally wrong to deduce any particular sympathy for
Catholicism, however. One reason Wagner attracted dislike and suspicion
in Bavaria was his Northern Protestant background and freethinking
attitudes.
> Rearding the supernatural communion and the chalise let`s see how
> actor Mel Gibson refreshes upon it next year in The Passion:
On the lines of the travesties he sponsored of Scottish history and the
US War of Independence, no doubt. Gibson's involvement in anything is
practically a stamped certificate of bullshit content.
Mike Scott Rohan
from k_co...@msn.com.au (Kimberley Cornish) contains these words:
{snip}
> Doctrine decided on three distinct Persons in One God. Gibbon, of
> course, very wittily ridiculed the importance of the issue. But in the
> twentieth cenury, those less respectful of determinations of heresy
> came to power in the Soviet Union and turned it into an abattoir.
> Their claim that the human sense of individuality is only a product of
> false consciousness of class, was used to legitimise the charnel
> house. The ancient issue of the true nature of God had simply sprung
> up in another form.
They were talking about the nature of humanity, the Byzantines about the
nature of God. Your confusing the two would have got you strangled in
Byzantium and shot in Soviet Russia. Here it just looks like an airy
generalization which actually means very little.
Luckily we were spared a modern Gibbon
> tactless enough to laugh at it, because we all understood that the
> issue really mattered. It is still of pivotal importance in China and
> North Korea. The sacred and the profane issues are NOT distinct and
> they certainly matter a good deal more than an iota.
Sacred to whom, profane to whom? There are a great many people in the
world to whom matters you consider sacred would be irrelevant or even
offensive.
Religious issues
> are important. Their inner logic is not always obvious, but it's depth
> makes them rise time after time in other forms.
Only if you stretch the resemblance beyond reasonable limits. It would
be truer to say that human nature reasserts itself in similar
stupidities and bigotries, in the name of whatever religion or church
happens to obtain. Otherwise, for one thing, you would have to blame the
religion for those consequences, when actually they are due to human
misapplication of religious principles.
{snip}
> I think it was a bit more than that, though it is certainly true that
> Wagner opposed the trappings of religion. Wagner described Jesus as
> "divine" somewhere (I'll try to dig up the reference if anyone wants
> it) so it has to be that Wagner thought a bit more than simply that
> Jesus had an important moral message.
He certainly did, but Wagner's concept of divinity was essentially
pantheistic and not specifically Christian.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> I found Waddell's twaddle amusing,...
That is how a modern scholar thinks about Waddell's comment on the
root word
of Par Parsifal.
http://www.iranian.com/History/2003/May/Pallava/index.html
1.2. Occurrence of Parsas across the world
The wide occurrence of the Iranic root-word Par in various place-names
proves the dispersion of the Pars or Persians across much of Asia in
ancient times. Thus, Persia, Persepolis, Pasargadae ("Gates of Parsa")
and "Parthaunisa (ancient city, Parthia)" or Nisa (Enc. Brit., vol.9,
p.173) are all constructed from the ancient Iranic root-word Pars.
In this regard, the learned Prof. Waddell notes in his masterpiece The
Makers of Civilization: "Barahsi or Parahsi [of Akkadian inscriptions]
now transpires to be the original of the ancient Persis province of
the Greeks, with its old capital at Anshan or Persepolis, the central
province of Persia to the East of Elam and the source of our modern
names of 'Persia' and 'Parsi'. And it is another instance of the
remarkable persistence of old territorial names" (Waddell 1929,
p.216).
REP
>
>
> On the lines of the travesties he sponsored of Scottish history and the
> US War of Independence, no doubt. Gibson's involvement in anything is
> practically a stamped certificate of bullshit content.
>
>
You said what was on my mind but dared not say. I don't understand how or
why links to a message board discussing an upcoming biblical (Hollywood?)
movie -- with apparently no contextual relevance -- keeps getting posted
here.
REP
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:200305171...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > On the lines of the travesties he sponsored of Scottish history and the
> > US War of Independence, no doubt. Gibson's involvement in anything is
> > practically a stamped certificate of bullshit content.
> >
I do not know how many degrees you have, but Mel has received an
honorary degree from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles on
Saturday May 10, 2003.
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---16922,00.html
and
I do not know if you were ever persecuted like Mel :
"Whenever you take up a subject like this it does bring out a lot of
enemies," he said. His private life, his banking records, charities he
supports, friends, business associates and family members have all
undergone scrutiny in this investigation, he said.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30497
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
What a logic?
Certainly it is in context to write:
There is no "truth" that Jesus used a cup.
and
This is gibberish.
and to say it is out of context to claim:
Rearding the supernatural communion and the chalise let`s see how
actor Mel Gibson refreshes upon it next year in The Passion:
Derrick Everett
> The message <c3b9b7e5.0305...@posting.google.com> from
> k_co...@msn.com.au (Kimberley Cornish) contains these words:
>
> {snip}
>> I think it was a bit more than that, though it is certainly true that
>> Wagner opposed the trappings of religion. Wagner described Jesus as
>> "divine" somewhere (I'll try to dig up the reference if anyone wants
>> it) so it has to be that Wagner thought a bit more than simply that
>> Jesus had an important moral message.
>
> He certainly did, but Wagner's concept of divinity was essentially
> pantheistic and not specifically Christian.
On one occasion in his later years Wagner said that he did not believe in
God although he did believe in divinity. In one of his late essays (I
think it is in "Religion and Art") he mentions "ò dios", the classical
Greek word for divinity, suggesting that he understood "divinity" in a
classical sense, as the term was used by Marcus Aurelius perhaps.
Wagner's idea of Christianity was never fully expressed by him -- but from
references in his writings and letters it does not appear to have been
close to conventional Christian ideas. He began by rejecting all forms of
institutional religion and went on to reject all Christian dogma, while
claiming to be a Christian, nominally at least. By which perhaps he meant
that he respected Christ and his teachings, although what those teachings
had been was a matter for infinite speculation, since the New Testament
was the end-product of a tradition begun by disciples who had understood
Jesus "no more than a little dog [understands] ourselves".
Derrick Everett
> "REP" <loIr...@Iolrqapq.com> wrote in message
> news:<_mxxa.7763$%8.4...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
>> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:200305171...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
>> >
>> >
>> > On the lines of the travesties he sponsored of Scottish history and
>> > the US War of Independence, no doubt. Gibson's involvement in
>> > anything is practically a stamped certificate of bullshit content.
>> >
>> >
> I do not know how many degrees you have, but Mel has received an
> honorary degree from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles on
> Saturday May 10, 2003.
> http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---16922,00.html
>
>
Surely the ultimate academic accolade.
I recall seeing a film in which Gibson played the lead role. It consisted
of a sequence of road accidents, loosely connected by what one might, with
considerable charity, call a plot.
Derrick Everett
Speculation is fun, isn't it? It is hardly surprising -- almost a
tautology -- that some words in related languages such as Iranian,
Sanskrit and Prakrit are closely related. In the nineteenth century it
was believed that similarity of language was evidence of common genetic
ancestry but more recently scholars have realised that this is an
over-simplification. That a medieval Englishman spoke a language based on
Norman French did not necessarily mean that he was descended from Normans.
It might still be that case however that Indian tribes who can trace their
origins back to NW India might be descended from ancient invaders and
immigrants who were related to the Iranians. Wagner speculated too, of
course: he thought that the Ksatriyas, the warrior caste of Vedic NW
India, were ancient Germans. That might be because the German edition of
"Ramayana" that he had been reading, had turned the Indian epic into a
Germanic epic.
The bold assertion by our friend Prof. Waddell that the words "Persia" and
"Parsi" can be traced back to Akkadian is highly speculative and, like
many of his assertions, not supported by evidence. The name "Parsua",
meaning land of the Persians, first appears on the Black Obelisk of the
Assyrian king Shalmaneser III in the record of his campaign of about 843
BC. The land referred to was almost certainly in what is now eastern
Kurdistan. The Persians soon became known to the Greeks as "Persai"
(compare the name of the hero Perseus) and their neighbours the Medes were
known to them as "Medoi" (compare the name of the heroine Medea).
In October 1872 Wagner adopted the spelling "Parsifal", rather late in the
development of that drama, on the basis of a contrived etymology he had
found in the introduction to an edition of "Lohengrin" by Görres, who
claimed that the name Parzival derived from the Arabic "Fal Parsi",
meaning perfect fool. There is no basis for this claim, however, and the
name is derived from the French "Perceval" meaning, one who penetrates the
valley.
The idea that the Perceval myth originated in Persian sources was put
forward by Dr. von Suhtscheck-Hauschka (1883-1944) about 1930. He argued
that the word "grail" was derived from the Persian roots "gohar" meaning
pearl and "al" meaning bright colour. Other scholars who looked into this
theory concluded that von Suhtscheck-Hauschka had misquoted his Persian
sources and that, as far as they could determine, there was no substance
to this claim.
REP
REP
"REP" <loIr...@Iolrqapq.com> wrote in message
news:8IPxa.17946$Hy3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.05.18....@c2i.net...
> > On Sat, 17 May 2003 12:07:22 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
> >
> > meaning perfect fool. There is no basis for this claim, however, and
the
> > name is derived from the French "Perceval" meaning, one who penetrates
the
> > valley.
> >
> > --
> > Derrick Everett (deverett at c2i.net)
> > ==== Writing from 59°54'N 10°36'E ====
> > http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/index.htm
> >
I think I read somewhere, possibly the Hatto translation, that Parzival
actually means "pierced thigh." I don't think I've heard of this "one who
penetrates the valley" before. How is that derived?
REP
Derrick Everett
> Sorry about the blank post above.
>
> "REP" <loIr...@Iolrqapq.com> wrote in message
> news:8IPxa.17946$Hy3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2003.05.18....@c2i.net...
>> > On Sat, 17 May 2003 12:07:22 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
>> >
>> > meaning perfect fool. There is no basis for this claim, however, and
> the name is derived from the French "Perceval" meaning, one who
> penetrates the valley.
>> >
>> >
> I think I read somewhere, possibly the Hatto translation, that Parzival
> actually means "pierced thigh." I don't think I've heard of this "one
> who penetrates the valley" before. How is that derived?
It is an obvious interpretation of the name in French: "percer" = to
pierce or to penetrate, and "val" = valley. The etymology of Perceval and
variants of the name is a subject discussed by most commentators on the
Grail romances. For example: Emma Jung and Marie-Louise von Franz explain
it as follows:
"The literal translation [of Perceval], 'pierces (or penetrates) the
valley', seems the likeliest and would imply that the hero was destined to
penetrate the dark valley of the unconscious. In the 'Perlesvaus' it is
emphasised that the name means 'per-les-vaux', i.e. 'for the valleys'. The
boy was thus christened in remembrance of the fact that his father [the
Welsh prince Gamuret] had lost some valleys belonging to him or because he
penetrates the mystery of the valley that leads to the Grail(*). Wolfram
himself explains the name [Parzival] as meaning 'right through the centre'
for 'with the plough of faithfulness great love ploughed a deep furrow
through the centre of his mother's heart'. The name would thus be
connected with the idea of the centre and the heart, a meaning really
invented by Wolfram, which nevertheless expresses Perceval's symbolic
nature extremely well." [Jung and von Franz, "The Grail Legend" (Die
Graalslegend in psyschologischer Sicht), chapter 10.]
(*) References: W.A.Nitze's edition of "Perlesvaus", page 218; R.S.Loomis,
"Arthurian Tradition and Chrétien de Troyes", page 489; Jean Marx, "La
Légende Arthurienne et la Graal", page 68.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 12:07:22 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
>
> > "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2003.05.09....@c2i.net>...
> tautology -- that some words in related languages such as Iranian,
> Sanskrit and Prakrit are closely related. In the nineteenth century it
> was believed that similarity of language was evidence of common genetic
> ancestry but more recently scholars have realised that this is an
> over-simplification. That a medieval Englishman spoke a language based on
> Norman French did not necessarily mean that he was descended from Normans.
That is something I would subscribe to if it was my field of
knowledge, but what you say here is repeated over and over by Prof.
Waddell since 1917 in all of his books, I think you find some passages
here
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/waddell.htm.
check the celtic myth page, confusion of language and race. Waddell
even proved there was no semitic race as believed today, since the
northern akkadians were the same race as the southern sumerians.
> It might still be that case however that Indian tribes who can trace their
> origins back to NW India might be descended from ancient invaders and
> immigrants who were related to the Iranians. Wagner speculated too, of
> course: he thought that the Ksatriyas, the warrior caste of Vedic NW
> India, were ancient Germans. That might be because the German edition of
> "Ramayana" that he had been reading, had turned the Indian epic into a
> Germanic epic.
>
According to Prof. Waddell Wagner was right, but it would be too
lenghty to put the argument foreward here, maybe another time. The
abundance of sumerian names in the Indus Valley script and the indian
languages alone proves their relation.
> The bold assertion by our friend Prof. Waddell that the words "Persia" and
> "Parsi" can be traced back to Akkadian is highly speculative and, like
> many of his assertions, not supported by evidence. The name "Parsua",
> meaning land of the Persians, first appears on the Black Obelisk of the
> Assyrian king Shalmaneser III in the record of his campaign of about 843
> BC. The land referred to was almost certainly in what is now eastern
> Kurdistan. The Persians soon became known to the Greeks as "Persai"
> (compare the name of the hero Perseus) and their neighbours the Medes were
> known to them as "Medoi" (compare the name of the heroine Medea).
I would leave this to specialists, Waddell only used verifiable facts,
not speculations. This does not mean he could not have made a mistake
now and then, but not in the bulk of his findings. You would have to
follow his translations of the assyrian from the akkadian. In any case
the sumerian root word here would be Bar or Bara, meaning fire, in a
physical and spiritual sense.
When you wonder why Waddell did interpreted a bowl bearing hittite
figure as wearing the "holy grail", this was based on the translation
of textual passages of the Edda describing this practise.(see British
Edda p. 173)
"The doughty able Ug (Thor) came to the Thing of the Goths
Wearing thus on his head the family Ewer of Hymi"
Acc. to Waddell "Edda, Eda" means " The Faith", greak Idea in the
platonic sense (see translation in Brithish Edda). When the Faith was
surpressed by the church to extinction various Edda stories survived
as christian myths, most likely also the "holy grail". Needless to
say, that Wagner tried to immortalize them.
Derrick Everett
> "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.05.18....@c2i.net>...
>> On Sat, 17 May 2003 12:07:22 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
>>
>>
> When you wonder why Waddell did interpreted a bowl bearing hittite
> figure as wearing the "holy grail", this was based on the translation of
> textual passages of the Edda describing this practise.(see British Edda
> p. 173) "The doughty able Ug (Thor) came to the Thing of the Goths
> Wearing thus on his head the family Ewer of Hymi"
I'd be interested to know what you might be quoting there. In the Eddic
poem "Hymnismál" the god Thor steals the cauldron of the giant Hymir and
escapes with it balanced on his head -- managing to swing his hammer at
the same time! This is not the same, of course, as wearing it as a hat.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
May I try to illustrate the problem I think you may have? There are
Christians in Kerala, Southern India and there are some in Iraq. Both
believe in "christianis anima naturalis", the soul is naturally
Christian. Modern scholars tend to say both Christianities have
developed indepentendly without contact, theologicans need not to
argue against. Former scholars who maintained that the Thomas
Christians were Nestorians from Babylon were wrong. We can therefore
disregard any scriptural references, they are of no impact.It is now
dogma that cultures developed independently all over.
Waddell et all discovered the bowl, grail, cauldron – but that does
not fit modern archaeologists view, therefore let it go to the UFO
community, that`s where it belongs.
A Troyan origin of the Latins (Rome), British (London), Franks
(Paris)– why should we take that serious, one of Wagners speculations.
I mean to say, there is massive evidence that the cauldron mentioned
in the Eddas is depicted on numerous ancient seals in the Near East
and its fragments had been excavated.Indeed this could be harmful to
so many myths that we have fallen in love with.
Derrick Everett
> "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.05.18....@c2i.net>... This is not the same,
> of course, as wearing it as a hat.
>
>
> May I try to illustrate the problem I think you may have? There are
> Christians in Kerala, Southern India and there are some in Iraq. Both
> believe in "christianis anima naturalis", the soul is naturally
> Christian. Modern scholars tend to say both Christianities have
> developed indepentendly without contact, theologicans need not to argue
> against. Former scholars who maintained that the Thomas Christians were
> Nestorians from Babylon were wrong. We can therefore disregard any
> scriptural references, they are of no impact.It is now dogma that
> cultures developed independently all over.
>
> Waddell et all discovered the bowl, grail, cauldron – but that does not
> fit modern archaeologists view, therefore let it go to the UFO
> community, that`s where it belongs.
Bowls, cauldrons and cooking pots are found in cultures all over the
planet. That is because humans cook and eat food. It is as simple as
that.
> A Troyan origin of the Latins (Rome), British (London), Franks (Paris)–
> why should we take that serious, one of Wagners speculations.
>
> I mean to say, there is massive evidence that the cauldron mentioned in
> the Eddas is depicted on numerous ancient seals in the Near East and its
> fragments had been excavated.Indeed this could be harmful to so many
> myths that we have fallen in love with.
Thank you for making perfectly clear what my problem was.
The cauldron mentioned in the Eddas is no more depicted on cylinder seals
than is the Brisingamen or any other treasure of the gods and giants of ON
mythology. To allow that there has been transmission and diffusion of
religion and myth does not imply that the myths of any given culture are
reflections of the religions and myths of other cultures, nor does it take
away the uniqueness of the individual culture. The tendency to seek a
unification of Indo-Germanic myth and religion, in the face of the
evidence of diversity, is characteristic of a totalitarian mentality.
Mike Scott Rohan
from sa_...@yahoo.co.in (sa_...@yahoo.co.in) contains these words:
> "REP" <loIr...@Iolrqapq.com> wrote in message
> news:<_mxxa.7763$%8.4...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> > "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:200305171...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> > >
> > >
> > > On the lines of the travesties he sponsored of Scottish history and the
> > > US War of Independence, no doubt. Gibson's involvement in anything is
> > > practically a stamped certificate of bullshit content.
> > >
> I do not know how many degrees you have, but Mel has received an
> honorary degree from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles on
> Saturday May 10, 2003.
> http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---16922,00.html
I don't see the point of mentioning this at all. Are you implying that
this in some way gives Gibson -- why refer to him as if he's your buddy?
-- any intellectual authority? If so, then you're sadly mistaken.
Honorary degrees confer no education or intellectual authority; at best
they recognise real achievement outside the intellectual sphere, at
worse they're what mediocre colleges use to attract publicity and
donations. From good universities you can't buy them, but elsewhere....
Gibson isn't stupid, I'm sure; he was a decent actor before he became a
star, and that takes a minimum of brain. But he promotes the big
bullshit view of history in his films, travestied even by the lowest of
Hollywood standards.
> and
> I do not know if you were ever persecuted like Mel :
> "Whenever you take up a subject like this it does bring out a lot of
> enemies," he said. His private life, his banking records, charities he
> supports, friends, business associates and family members have all
> undergone scrutiny in this investigation, he said.
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30497
Again, what does this have to do with anything? Does it make him a
martyr, or anything he says more likely to be true? If you take a less
than totally naive look at this, you may remember that roping in
conspiracy theory is one of the oldest PR tricks in the book -- "the
film they tried to ban" kind of thing. In any case, a film star's life
is built entirely on exposure and publicity, so they're bound to court
scrutiny -- it's the price of inflated public presence. Note the story
doesn't say who was scrutinizing him -- the IRS, maybe?
Mike Scott Rohan
from sa_...@yahoo.co.in (sa_...@yahoo.co.in) contains these words:
> What a logic?
> Certainly it is in context to write:
> There is no "truth" that Jesus used a cup.
> and
> This is gibberish.
> and to say it is out of context to claim:
> Rearding the supernatural communion and the chalise let`s see how
> actor Mel Gibson refreshes upon it next year in The Passion:
> http://forums.gospelcom.net/view/hollywoodjesus/passion/
This is, again, gibberish. What you write makes almost no sense.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> contains these words:
{snip}
> > I do not know how many degrees you have, but Mel has received an
> > honorary degree from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles on
> > Saturday May 10, 2003.
> > http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---16922,00.html
> >
> >
> Surely the ultimate academic accolade.
> I recall seeing a film in which Gibson played the lead role. It consisted
> of a sequence of road accidents, loosely connected by what one might, with
> considerable charity, call a plot.
Oh, Gibson was quite a good actor once upon a time. He made his name
back home as a very effective Hamlet*. He even filmed the part quite
respectably for Golan & Globus, though by then he was too old. Compared
to, say, Russell Crowe, he's a real actor. But lately, in films he's
effectively controlled, he's made really vicious historical travesties,
far worse than the usual Hollywood schlock; so nothing he comes up with
on the Grail theme is likely to be worth a moment's consideration.
Cheers,
Mike
* (mind you, so did William Shatner!)
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> Bowls, cauldrons and cooking pots are found in cultures all over the
> planet. That is because humans cook and eat food. It is as simple as
> that.
The first baking oven for bread was excavated in Cappadocia, near
where that stone bowl with the inscription of one god was unearthed,
but as you say religion is something for totalitarian minds?
Charles Zigmund
> >... Although an awful lot of what went up in the Sixties is now coming down,
> often a lot quicker than people would like! I could be more
> philosophical about changing fashions if it wasn't for what has been
> destroyed to make room for it, marvellous old quarters of beautiful
> cities I know -- Edinburgh and Oxford, among them, and Paris. And they
> had the nerve to tell us at the time that this was the future and we'd
> better get to like it! Now it just looks shabby and trashy, in a tenth
> the lifespan of what it replaced. There was that bloody architect -- was
> it Louis Kahn? -- who decreed that to make a building (or anything else)
> deliberately beautiful was a dastardly act. And he was slavishly
> followed by hundreds of mediocrities, glad to be relieved of the
> creative effort.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
I dislike the John Cages and other promoters of current
dadaism/nonsense and nihilism as much as anyone. But I think it's a
mistake to lump Louis Kahn in with them. Is that truly a quote of his
or not? He spoke reverently of the spiritual beauty of past
architecture, and I believe his best work, such as the Institute of
Public Administration in Ahmedabad, India, radiates such spirituality.
Although his work is often austere, it is so only in style, not in
content, as may be said of some of Bach's music. If the quote is
really his, I would think he was speaking of artificial attempts to
pretty up a building on its surface, without having an underlying
concept of what the building truly is and means. As for his imitators,
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are no doubt
hundreds of composers in the classical style of the late 18th century
who are not in the repertory now. A previous poster is correct in
observing that the mistakes of [medicore] [my emendation] architects
clutter the landscape (unlike the mistakes of mediocre composers), but
I wonder to what extent a great architect should have to water down
his work because it is looks austere and will provoke mediocre
imitations.
But the important point I wish to make, again, is that in Kahn's case,
whatever one may think of or feel about his work, I don't think we
have a case of neo-dadaism, anti-art or conceptual claptrap.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
Mike,
I am working with a cinema and I know perhaps better than anyone else
here,
that the load of rubbish produced in the last years lead to many ruins
in the branch. They are struggling to survive, Matrix reloaded or UFO
related crap will not pull the cart out any longer. Hollywood has
sensed this, they are making historical movies like Word By Word from
the Gospel of St John, Alexander The Great, King Cyrus of Persia,
Michael Moores Fahrenheit 911 - out of which Mel Gibson`s The Passion
is outstanding, the result of a ten years preparation, as Gibson
claims. So why should I not be positive about it, why should I not
assume that he researched well. The Passion cannot really be compared
to his previous films. In this respect I see Mel Gibson as a brother
in faith who deserves an honorary degree for this effort.
Peace
A.C. Douglas
>[snipped - original post is below]
>So why should I not be positive about it [_The Passion_], why should I not
>assume that he [Mel Gibson] researched well. The Passion
>cannot really be compared
>to his previous films. In this respect I see Mel Gibson as a brother
>in faith who deserves an honorary degree for this effort.
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you seen the film? Well, I know you haven't, so vis-a-vis _The Passion_,
how could you imagine him deserving of either an "honorary degree," or of
anything else, for that matter.
As to why you "should...not be positive about it," even never having seen it:
If Gibson is anything like his father and mother -- and from his statements
about this film he seems a true chip off the old block -- then he's a religious
fanatic; a lunatic Catholic whose Catholic "conservatism" makes the pope -- even
the present pope -- appear a regular heretic.
--
ACD
http://acdouglas.com
------------------- original post -------------------
<sa_...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:ca71138c.03051...@posting.google.com...
A.C. Douglas
>[snipped - original post is below]
>There was that bloody architect -- was
>it Louis Kahn? -- who decreed that to make a building (or anything else)
>deliberately beautiful was a dastardly act. And he was slavishly
>followed by hundreds of mediocrities, glad to be relieved of the
>creative effort.
---------------------------------------------------------
As I'm not really following this thread, I missed this first time around, my
attention called to it only by Charles Zigmund's reply.
I agree with Charles. No way Louis Kahn ever said such a thing. I suspect the
architect who said that was Corbu early in his career when he was captivated by
the idea of buildings as "machines for living [and working]," but that's only a
guess on my part. Actually, it could have been any one of the architects of the
so-called "International Style" movement.
--
ACD
http://acdouglas.com
------------------- original post -------------------
"Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200305091...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
The message <BADF35AC.8D6A%r.par...@verizon.net>
from Richard Partridge <r.par...@verizon.net> contains these words:
> [snip]
> I agree with that. We Americans may yet see the day when we wish we had the
> stabilizing infuence of a monarch (though I'm sure you couldn't get elected
> to Congress on that platform).
I believe some of the loony private-militia survivalists presently run
on a conspiracy theory that H.M. is plotting to subvert and reconquer
the USA....
> I think the Australians would have made a mistake to cut themselves loose.
It'd be their right, and in their image of Britain (sedulously promoted
by R.Murdoch Industries) the monarchy stands for all the stuffiest
things. But they can't cut Britain out of their culture or their blood,
so IMHO they ought to be more secure about it. Trying so stridently to
cut a thread that hardly bothers them and has many advantages -- those
of any friendly link with another country, at the least -- suggests not
confidence in their own achievement, but lack of it.
> I think Prince Charles was right in his criticism of modern architecture.
A lot of people feel that, but it can be awfully hard to make oneself
heard against the Establishment. Charles, as in many other areas, gives
a voice to that kind of sentiment, in a way that an elected politician
with too many backsides to kiss can never afford to, and that an
undemocratic tyrant wouldn't bother to. Even when one doesn't agree with
him, an independent voice in the corridors of power is always valuable.
Besides, he can do Goon imitations.
> Fashions in the arts come and go. If we get tired of looking at a painting,
> the museum can put it in the storeroom. But buildings can't be hidden and
> are there for a long time.
Although an awful lot of what went up in the Sixties is now coming down,
often a lot quicker than people would like! I could be more
philosophical about changing fashions if it wasn't for what has been
destroyed to make room for it, marvellous old quarters of beautiful
cities I know -- Edinburgh and Oxford, among them, and Paris. And they
had the nerve to tell us at the time that this was the future and we'd
better get to like it! Now it just looks shabby and trashy, in a tenth
the lifespan of what it replaced. There was that bloody architect -- was
it Louis Kahn? -- who decreed that to make a building (or anything else)
deliberately beautiful was a dastardly act. And he was slavishly
followed by hundreds of mediocrities, glad to be relieved of the
creative effort.
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown, out now -- Shadow of the Seer, the sixth Winter of
the World novel
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
Max Freischutz
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 00:42:41 -0700, sa_...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
>
> > "REP" <loIr...@Iolrqapq.com> wrote in message
> > news:<_mxxa.7763$%8.4...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> >> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in
> >> message news:200305171...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On the lines of the travesties he sponsored of Scottish history and
> >> > the US War of Independence, no doubt. Gibson's involvement in
> >> > anything is practically a stamped certificate of bullshit content.
> >> >
I am happy to have made it no further than the trailer of each. If
only I could say the same of "Gladiator"...
> >> >
> > I do not know how many degrees you have, but Mel has received an
> > honorary degree from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles on
> > Saturday May 10, 2003.
> > http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---16922,00.html
> >
> >
> Surely the ultimate academic accolade.
Well, LMU is a perfectly decent school, but I would not be surprised
if it were Gibson's involvement in the very film project under
discussion that prompted their offer.
Futher off the topic, a reading of the full web article refuting the
false, post-war "Priory" led to my discovery of dozens of esoteric
cults I had never heard of, groups that seem alive and well. Must
people allow their minds to be so frail? Maybe it's the effect of
overcrowding. There has to be an excuse.
>
> I recall seeing a film in which Gibson played the lead role. It consisted
> of a sequence of road accidents, loosely connected by what one might, with
> considerable charity, call a plot.
Hey, that's the only one I like! Nature greasy in tooth and claw amid
choking fumes, blinding sand, a moment of decision by the laconic and
initially unwilling hero...I think I'll see it again!
Max F.
Derrick Everett
> The message <pan.2003.05.18...@c2i.net>
> from "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> contains these words:
>
> {snip}
>
>> > I do not know how many degrees you have, but Mel has received an
>> > honorary degree from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles on
>> > Saturday May 10, 2003.
>> > http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---16922,00.html
>> >
>> >
>> Surely the ultimate academic accolade.
>
>> I recall seeing a film in which Gibson played the lead role. It consisted
>> of a sequence of road accidents, loosely connected by what one might, with
>> considerable charity, call a plot.
>
> Oh, Gibson was quite a good actor once upon a time. He made his name
> back home as a very effective Hamlet*. He even filmed the part quite
> respectably for Golan & Globus, though by then he was too old. Compared
> to, say, Russell Crowe, he's a real actor.
Compared to Russell Crowe, a wooden puppet is a real actor.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> Have you seen the film? Well, I know you haven't, so vis-a-vis _The Passion_,
> how could you imagine him deserving of either an "honorary degree," or of
> anything else, for that matter.
>
> As to why you "should...not be positive about it," even never having seen it:
> If Gibson is anything like his father and mother -- and from his statements
> about this film he seems a true chip off the old block -- then he's a religious
> fanatic; a lunatic Catholic whose Catholic "conservatism" makes the pope -- even
> the present pope -- appear a regular heretic.
>
> --
> ACD
> http://acdouglas.com>
ACD,
you may have missed the recent weeks at the vaticanl, the pope has
made efforts to reconcile with traditionalists to the effect to let
them practise the divine service as they were used to.
The Passion is, what I read, in the cutting room now. Some shots are
here
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/misc_20021121.html
I would suggest to get more information from
http://forums.gospelcom.net/view/hollywoodjesus/passion/view_post?id=134
and participate in the posting.
Peace
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
Considering Wagner`s Tannhäuser Elizabeth or Parsifal, Wagner the
artist displayed deep devotional catholizism.
Let us review a post like
Pagan Power in Modern Europe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/5413
and check if we would find Wagner in there, I doubt if many would.
A.C. Douglas
>[snipped - original post is below]
---------------------------------------------------------
Does it say anything there about Mel Gibson being a Holocaust denier, and
convinced the Jews are Christ-killers to this very day? You know. Just like
his father and mother believe.
Bet not.
--
ACD
http://acdouglas.com
------------------- original post -------------------
<sa_...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:ca71138c.03051...@posting.google.com...
"A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
Mike Scott Rohan
from sa_...@yahoo.co.in (sa_...@yahoo.co.in) contains these words:
> Mike Scott Rohan <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:<200305191...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk>...
> Mike,
He can have an honorary thermometer, for all I care -- it doesn't stop
his historical films being tendentious lies, both in detail content and
in overall effect. As a Scot and among other things a historian,
Braveheart makes me want to throw up. Nothing he has to say about the
Grail, the Passion or anything else could possibly be worth any
attention.
Mike Scott Rohan
{snip}
> Considering Wagner`s Tannhäuser Elizabeth or Parsifal, Wagner the
> artist displayed deep devotional catholizism.
Oh yeah? Parsifal -- both the opera and the central character -- is
riddled with Buddhist doctrine, such as reincarnation, which is
presented as a matter of fact. To take just one example, Parsifal, in
his enlightened state, anguishes over the sins he must have committed in
a past life to deserve such pain now. Communicants of every Christian
church I know of are specifically forbidden to believe in such things
(although the Catholic church did once appear to have canonized Buddha
by accident).
You are confusing writing about Christianity with being a Christian.
Wagner wrote about Norse myth with equal conviction, but he wasn't an
Odin-worshipper. Wagner responded to religion and belief in a
pantheistic way.
> Let us review a post like
> Pagan Power in Modern Europe
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/5413
> and check if we would find Wagner in there, I doubt if many would.
Well, probably not, but then we wouldn't find plenty of non-Christians
-- practically all of them, I expect. And certainly Wagner attracts
attention from neo-paganist loonies; I know because I've encountered
some. This is a pretty bizarre way of trying to prove that Wagner was
Christian, let alone devoutly Catholic. It's also misguided, because on
more than one occasion he said things that show he didn't think of
himself specifically as a Christian -- joking that he and Levi would
have to get themselves baptised together in order to conduct Parsifal,
for example.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> contains these words:
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >[snipped - original post is below]
> >There was that bloody architect -- was
> >it Louis Kahn? -- who decreed that to make a building (or anything else)
> >deliberately beautiful was a dastardly act. And he was slavishly
> >followed by hundreds of mediocrities, glad to be relieved of the
> >creative effort.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> As I'm not really following this thread, I missed this first time around, my
> attention called to it only by Charles Zigmund's reply.
> I agree with Charles. No way Louis Kahn ever said such a thing. I
> suspect the
> architect who said that was Corbu early in his career when he was
> captivated by
> the idea of buildings as "machines for living [and working]," but
> that's only a
> guess on my part. Actually, it could have been any one of the
> architects of the
> so-called "International Style" movement.
So far as I can find, yes, it was indeed Louis I. Kahn; the reference I
have to it is in fact in the context of the Indian admin building. But
I'll continue to check.
Cheers,
Mike
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
>
> >[snipped - original post is below]
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Does it say anything there about Mel Gibson being a Holocaust denier, and
> convinced the Jews are Christ-killers to this very day? You know. Just like
> his father and mother believe.
>
> Bet not.
>
> --
> ACD
> http://acdouglas.com
>
http://forums.gospelcom.net/view/hollywoodjesus/passion/
is a non moderated forum
you will find as much as contributors give
i.g. interview with Mel Gibsons Father for 30 min
(realplayer1) required
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gibson_01_17_03.mp3
Peace
A.C. Douglas
>[snipped - original post is below]
---------------------------------------------------------
Mea culpa here. I overlooked the qualifier "deliberately." Kahn was not
concerned with beauty per se, and the beauty of a building, according to him,
arose from its form(s), which in turn arose from the building's program.
--
ACD
http://acdouglas.com
------------------- original post -------------------
"Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200305201...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
REP
news:200305201...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> from sa_...@yahoo.co.in (sa_...@yahoo.co.in) contains these words:
>
> {snip}
>
> > Considering Wagner`s Tannhäuser Elizabeth or Parsifal, Wagner the
> > artist displayed deep devotional catholizism.
>
> Oh yeah? Parsifal -- both the opera and the central character -- is
> riddled with Buddhist doctrine, such as reincarnation, which is
> presented as a matter of fact. To take just one example, Parsifal, in
> his enlightened state, anguishes over the sins he must have committed in
> a past life to deserve such pain now. Communicants of every Christian
> church I know of are specifically forbidden to believe in such things
> (although the Catholic church did once appear to have canonized Buddha
> by accident).
>
> You are confusing writing about Christianity with being a Christian.
> Wagner wrote about Norse myth with equal conviction, but he wasn't an
> Odin-worshipper. Wagner responded to religion and belief in a
> pantheistic way.
I agree with much of what you say, but have to wonder how Wagner's apparant
despisal for the Old Testament's God works into your view of his pantheism.
I know what you're trying to say, but don't think pantheism is the right
word, because it does denote _worship_ of all Gods.
> > Let us review a post like
> > Pagan Power in Modern Europe
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/5413
> > and check if we would find Wagner in there, I doubt if many would.
>
> Well, probably not, but then we wouldn't find plenty of non-Christians
> -- practically all of them, I expect. And certainly Wagner attracts
> attention from neo-paganist loonies; I know because I've encountered
> some. This is a pretty bizarre way of trying to prove that Wagner was
> Christian, let alone devoutly Catholic. It's also misguided, because on
> more than one occasion he said things that show he didn't think of
> himself specifically as a Christian -- joking that he and Levi would
> have to get themselves baptised together in order to conduct Parsifal,
> for example.
>
Above you say that Parsifal is riddled with Buddhism, when here you quote
Wagner all but saying Parsifal is at least partially a Catholic or Christian
work. He could use that against you, you know!
REP
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
at
http://66.242.35.139/bbs/message.php?message=45435&mpage=4&topic=3
I SUPPORT MEL. Excellent Christian. Mel愀 life before Hollywood was
very bizarre. Hawkwind
I like Mel Gibson. How many other "Hollywood types" have stayed
married to the mother of their children after all these years? Ann 123
I applaud Mel Gibson for bravely doing this! nu2here
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
which he had laid down in 1848 and which he followed in his works to
the end, regardless of temporary moods:
"In the German Folk survives the oldest lawful race of Kings in all
the world: it issues from a son of God, called by his nearest kinsmen
Siegfried, but Christ by the remaining nations of the earth;..."
nowhere he excluded, that this could not be the God of the OT.
Peace
Derrick Everett
> Sorry to repeat myself here, but Wagners "pan-theism" carried a dogma
> which he had laid down in 1848 and which he followed in his works to
> the end, regardless of temporary moods:
He did no such thing.
>
> "In the German Folk survives the oldest lawful race of Kings in all
> the world: it issues from a son of God, called by his nearest kinsmen
> Siegfried, but Christ by the remaining nations of the earth;..."
If you read the passage more carefully, you might notice that Wagner put
these words inside "quotation marks". He was putting these words into the
mouth of the Emperor Frederick I, as a poetic expression of the imperial
ideal, with the Emperor above the Pope and all kings. To represent these
words as a dogma or creed to which Wagner held is a misrepesentation and,
in short, a big lie.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "REP" <loIr...@Iolrqapq.com> contains these words:
{snip}
> I agree with much of what you say, but have to wonder how Wagner's apparant
> despisal for the Old Testament's God works into your view of his pantheism.
> I know what you're trying to say, but don't think pantheism is the right
> word, because it does denote _worship_ of all Gods.
You are right about the strict meaning of pantheism, but it's the
closest term I can find. Wagner's writings on religion, such as
"Religion & Art" and "Heroism & Christianity", I must admit I read only
a long time ago, and as usual with him they don't tell the full story.
His concept of worship seems -- this is as far as I can define it,
because I'm not sure he ever did -- to center on reverence, without the
necessity of formalities such as churches, dogmas, ritual etc.. (Totally
failing to understand the nature of Jewish worship at a synagogue he
visited, he criticized what he saw as a lack of reverence.) Given his
own rather old-fashioned Lutheran background and upbringing, it isn't
surprising that he took Christianity very seriously, as a central part
of his beliefs -- but only a part. It would probably be truest to say
that he viewed that reverence or religious instinct as directed at a
greater truth of which individual faiths were only incomplete
reflections; it therefore seemed natural to him to combine them in
Parsifal, and in that sense he was a pantheist.
> Above you say that Parsifal is riddled with Buddhism, when here you quote
> Wagner all but saying Parsifal is at least partially a Catholic or Christian
> work. He could use that against you, you know!
Not really! Of course Parsifal has a strong Christian content, and it
was important to Wagner. But not so devoutly important that he didn't
think fit both to preserve certain pagan elements from the original
legend, and to stir Buddhist elements into it, to express his own
personal blend of faiths. That is not the act of the devout Christian,
let alone the devout Catholic -- nor, for that matter, is representing
what is essentially the mass onstage, transubstantiation and all, which
raised a considerable stink at the time among both Catholic and
Protestant believers. Calling Wagner a devout Catholic is plain
ridiculous; his attitudes and instincts were quite strongly Protestant.
Even calling him a devout Christian would require a pretty elastic
interpretation of the term -- more so than any of the major churches
would recognise, even nowadays, and certainly back then.
Cheers,
Mike
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk, wrote the following:
[snip]
> He [Mel Gibson] can have an honorary thermometer, for all I care -- it doesn't
> stop
> his historical films being tendentious lies, both in detail content and
> in overall effect. As a Scot and among other things a historian,
> Braveheart makes me want to throw up. Nothing he has to say about the
> Grail, the Passion or anything else could possibly be worth any
> attention.
I hesitate to ask, but . . . that would be an oral thermometer, wouldn't
it?
I thought "Braveheart" was incredibly bad. Without knowing anything about
the history of Scotland, which I don't, it was obvious that his version was
childish trash.
If I recall, the film won the award for best picture. I hadn't previously
realized how totally meretricious the Academy Awards are.
Judging from the reviews, "The Patriot" was no better. I wouldn't go near
it.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
I wouldn't go near it.
Richard,
Somehow the message got lost,
Why not accept the wise council of Dr. Ted Baehr.
In his article
http://66.242.35.139/bbs/message.php?message=45435&mpage=4&topic=3
cited already above:
However, the words of Gamaliel 2,000 years ago in Acts 5:38-39 (NIV)
sound more accurate when he stood up in the Sanhedrin and said:
"Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone!
Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it
will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these
men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
Hatfield
Your interesting revelation about Amfortas performing a grail ceremony
which is not part of communion but an alternative to communion, was
well received by me.
But alternately let's imagine that Wagner merely meant to portray what
normally might be expected under circumstance of a most traditional
Christian sect having mass when the Grail itself is at hand. Seems
unremarkable to me for Wagner to have Amfortas waving so Holy an
object towards everyone in turn sometime during what he meant to be a
very orthodox communion. Afterwards, the believing Knights present
swear blessings received from the exposure.
Back to the appropriateness of the Holy Grail being best thought of as
historical or mythological. Both Jewish and Christian writings
ultimately place Jesus in Jerusalem during Passover in a situation
where only a miracle or cowardly hiding his identity can get him out
of town alive. The Gospels always place him away from the capital out
of fear for life. But like any Jew without good excuse the exception
is the required annual pilgrimage. Continually claiming Messiahship,
each yearly trip would then surely prove more dangerous than the last;
inevitably comes the year when pretty much everyone expects the local
religious leaders will this time nail him.
Being Passover, he will surely come to be seated around a table
together with his main followers, bread and wine before them all. Its
going to be a most serious ceremony, Jesus not expected to outlive the
week. Due to the high occasion, if any follower be wealthy, then the
necessary cup set before him is likely to be materially the very best
available.
The Rebbe's (Jesus') toast sure to be a fitting farewell, the Gospel's
text ("this do in remembrance of me", etc.) should seam likely enough
even to an atheist reading the account.
I merely argue for almost inevitability winding up with a most Holy
cup resulting from a crucified highly regarded would be Messiah (call
it horn or bowl instead if anyone prefers).
In other words, I think it logical to consider at least this basic
part of the traditional Christian Grail tale as best seen as probably
historical, as opposed to likely mythological, in so far as any 'last
Passover' cup is enough to qualify it as Grail. Later embellishments
and relics then being myth.
I don't regard the Joseph of Aramatheia part as surely myth either. If
treasuring his blood was emphasized during the last speech, and two
days later we have a bloody Jesus (i.e. the crown of thorns outside
Pilot's residence), then that might suggest to the whichever of the
faithful now holds the supper souvenir to likely later bring it out to
capture some precious drops.
On the other hand, I suppose Wagner might have altered the mass to
indicate some sort of new religious myth mixed in with orthodox
Christianity. As was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, reincarnation
is mentioned in the drama and Michael Tanner's in his >Wagner< went so
far as to say he was sort of inventing a brand new religion in
>Tristan<.
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
Derrick,
it is not common to set parantheses into parantheses " "_"", I did set
parantheses "_" indeed and we discussed the source, The Wibelungen
before (British Edda, Adrian Wagner?).
Wagner put these words into the Emperors heart as an outpouring of his
soul, how could he read the emperors mind if he would not have
identified himself with him. On the contrarary, Wagner knew of the
conflict Kaiser and Pope and he reconciled it, with that statement,
which was the outcome of his personal research.
We need to see the background here, Napoleon, by many Germans looked
upon as the Antichrist was defeated when Wagner was born.
Transcendental philosophy of Kant, Classizism of Goethe could not
soothe the soul of the many educated, there was a movement back to
Herder, a scientific inquiery into mythology headed by leaders like
the catholic Görres. The aim was to detect history out of mythological
remains, which Protestantism was prone to overlook. What Wagner had
gained in this field was what he could believe to be the best of
knowledge available, His own, personal highest truth he voiced through
the highest representative of God, of Siegfried ( translated as
Victory and Peace), of a distant founder of civilization with whom the
Kaiser shared a a racial and metaphysical descent. The same descent
Wagner established between Siegfried and Christ and the Pope. Kaiser
and Pope were a historicaly grown unity, a reality that Wagner
positioned as an established fact , a position which many of his
contemporaries could not comprehend, I repeat Wagner`s Siegfried was
the namesake ideal he conceived of Victor and Peacemaker, the later
aspect of Siegfried he immortalized not in the buddhist victor but in
the universal (= transcending roman-catholic) Parsifal.
PS: It was a catholic priest named Saymund, an Icelander who travelled
France and Germany and who selected the remains of the Icelanders
Edda. It was Benedictine monks who collected the last Edda fragments
in Iceland and preserved them. Our thanks belong to them.
Fridrik Skulason
> "Derrick Everett" <deve...@c2i.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.05.21....@c2i.net>...
> PS: It was a catholic priest named Saymund, an Icelander who travelled
> France and Germany and who selected the remains of the Icelanders
> Edda.
Pardon me, but what is your source for this claim ? It does not agree
with any part of the Edda history that I am familiar with.
> It was Benedictine monks who collected the last Edda fragments
> in Iceland and preserved them. Our thanks belong to them.
While it is certainly possible that monks may have been involved in
the writing of the (now lost) manuscripts that Codex Regius was based
on, or even Codex Regius itself, , it has never been proven, so what
is your source for this claim ?
Mike Scott Rohan
from Richard Partridge <r.par...@verizon.net> contains these words:
{Snip}
> I hesitate to ask, but . . . that would be an oral thermometer, wouldn't
> it?
Certainly. The alternative might be a bit crowded.
> I thought "Braveheart" was incredibly bad. Without knowing anything about
> the history of Scotland, which I don't, it was obvious that his version was
> childish trash.
One hardly knows where to start. I began trying to list the distortions,
mostly deliberate, and realized it'd be pages long. The stream of
bullshit is so incessant that you can just about take anything at random
-- even little details like appearance -- as by definition untrue. The
blue faces -- a two thousand year anachronism. The kilts -- Wallace
would have hanged anyone he saw in a kilt, as by definition an outsider
and thief. The Sophie Marceau character was barely three when Wallace
was executed. Scotland hadn't "endured a hundred years of English
oppression" or whatever, it had been totally independent, prosperous and
hardly bothered, by the standards of the time... And so on ad infinitum.
> If I recall, the film won the award for best picture. I hadn't previously
> realized how totally meretricious the Academy Awards are.
Just ignorant, tendentious, and fond of formula. It made a loud noise,
it painted a romantic picture, and the English were the bad guys. What
more d'ya want?
> Judging from the reviews, "The Patriot" was no better. I wouldn't go near
> it.
Very wise. It's so hard to scrape off one's shoe.
Cheers,
Mike
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
On the subject of the Eddas I depend on what I have read,
you may go to http://www.northvegr.org/ for translations et all.
They have also links to some catholic sites.
Since Dr. Waddell based himself on Karl Simrock ( as did Wagner)
edited by
Prof. Dr. G. Neckel, I take that edition. (ISBN 3-923784-01-5)
I read in the Preface that Saymund travelled to Rome, where he studied
in a clerical school. On his way back he travelled through France,
Germany, Saxony and Norway.
In 1643 Bishop B. Swendsen found Saymonds Edda and preserved it.
I do not know how much is speculation. Pls ask me on the subject of
www.geocities.com/sa_ga_g for details on the British Edda.
Peace
sa_...@yahoo.co.in
> On the other hand, I suppose Wagner might have altered the mass to
> indicate some sort of new religious myth mixed in with orthodox
> Christianity. As was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, reincarnation
> is mentioned in the drama and Michael Tanner's in his >Wagner< went so
> far as to say he was sort of inventing a brand new religion in
> >Tristan<.
It was not Wagners style to alter mass or tradition, without
conclusive reason behind it. Since the characters of Parsifal or
Kundry where formed from historical and mythological changes, he could
interpret this as re-incarnations, but not in a strictly buddhistic or
hinduistic sense. Wagners mythological background was strong enough to
incooperate Schopenhauers philosophical Buddhism, but was not
overtaken by it. In this way he was more of a mystic, visionary than
we would have him nowadays. His way often was, seek the kingdom
within. This way it is said, that he received the first chords of the
Overture to Rheingold, pure fifths "in a trance like state from above"
or within, as a Pythagorean would say.
Derrick Everett
> was...@jps.net (Hatfield) wrote in message
> news:<3a31dd1d.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> On the other hand, I suppose Wagner might have altered the mass to
>> indicate some sort of new religious myth mixed in with orthodox
>> Christianity. As was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, reincarnation
>> is mentioned in the drama and Michael Tanner's in his >Wagner< went so
>> far as to say he was sort of inventing a brand new religion in
>> >Tristan<.
>
> It was not Wagners style to alter mass or tradition, without conclusive
> reason behind it. Since the characters of Parsifal or Kundry where
> formed from historical and mythological changes, he could interpret this
> as re-incarnations, but not in a strictly buddhistic or hinduistic
> sense.
The references to reincarnation and rebirth in the libretto/poem of
"Parsifal" are unmistakeable. There are however differences in the
representation of reincarnation/rebirth in relation to Parsifal and
Kundry.
In the case of Kundry: in the first act we see her enter into a "deathlike
sleep" from which she is awoken (in the second act by Klingsor in his
domain, in the third act by Gurnemanz in the Grail domain) and at first
seems not to remember her previous lives, even what had happened in an
earlier act of the drama. Here Wagner was developing an idea he had found
in Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation": sleep, wrote
Schopenhauer, is very much like death. Sleep is a state that intervenes
between yesterday and tomorrow; death is a state that intervenes between a
previous life and our present life. On the other hand, as Wagner was
aware since it is also described (although only in outline) in WWR,
Schopenhauer's interpretation of reincarnation was rather different from
classical doctrines of metempsychosis, including those of India.
Gurnemanz muses that Kundry perhaps has been reborn, to atone for sins
committed in an earlier life (an odd statement for a Christian to make!)
We are not shown Parsifal being reborn, except in the sense, as it might
be said, that he experiences a spiritual rebirth in the latter part of the
second act. It is possible to see in his first act confusion that he is
unable to remember what happened in previous lives, when he had those many
names that he cannot recall. It is implied that the hidden strength which
enables him to resist the magic of Klingsor and the seductive charms of the
transformed Kundry, was gained not in his present and to date very
sheltered life, but in previous lives. But here one has to read between
the lines.
Derrick Everett
> fr...@complex.is (Fridrik Skulason) wrote in message
> news:<fcd2fc13.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>
> On the subject of the Eddas I depend on what I have read, you may go to
> http://www.northvegr.org/ for translations et all. They have also links
> to some catholic sites.
>
> Since Dr. Waddell based himself on Karl Simrock ( as did Wagner) edited
> by Prof. Dr. G. Neckel, I take that edition. (ISBN 3-923784-01-5) I read
> in the Preface that Saymund travelled to Rome, where he studied in a
> clerical school. On his way back he travelled through France, Germany,
> Saxony and Norway.
>
> In 1643 Bishop B. Swendsen found Saymonds Edda and preserved it.
>
>
>
The main source for the Poetic Edda (sometimes known as the Elder Edda or
Saemund's Edda) is a unique 13th century manuscript, the Codex Regius.
This document is a vellum book of 45 leaves, which has been dated to about
1270, although linguistic analysis indicates that the poems were collected
at least three decades earlier. It contains the texts of 29 Old Norse
(or, if you prefer, Old Icelandic) poems, not all of them complete. There
are some (probably 8) pages missing in the section that contains poems
about Sigurðr Fáfnisbani (Sigurd the slayer of Fafnir). It is widely
believed that these lost pages contained the longest poem about Sigurd,
often referred to as the Great Lay of Sigurd, although this is only
speculation. The pages following this "great lacuna" contain the end of a
poem about Sigurd (Brot at Sigurðaqviðo), the entire Lesser Lay of
Sigurd (Sigurðarqviða in scamma), and other poems involving characters
such as Brynhildr and Guðrun. All of these poems were studied by Wagner,
at least initially in German translation (in editions by Majer, Grimm,
Studach, Legis, Ettmüller and Simrock respectively) -- although it
appears that he did later consult ON sources of some poems -- in the early
stages of the development of his "Ring" poems.
After the Codex Regius the manuscript evidence for these poems is
fragmentary. The most substantial of the other manuscripts contains only
seven poems. Analysis has shown that there are systematic differences in
the Codex Regius between two sets of poems, one of them containing heroic
poems and the other mythological poems, which might be the result of
combining two earlier collections of written poems. The Codex Regius is
not recorded before it came into the possession of Bishop Sveinsson in
1643. He gave the collection of poems the name, "Edda Saemundi multiscii"
because he believed it to be the work of an Icelandic historian, Sæmundr
Sigfússon (1056-1133). In 1662 the manuscript was sent as a gift to the
king of Denmark and until 1972, when it was returned to Iceland, the Codex
Regius was preserved in the Royal Library in Copenhagen.
The title Edda had already been used in relation to Snorri Sturlason's
book long before the Codex Regius was called "Edda". The oldest
manuscript of Snorri's Edda, the Codex Upsaliensis, states, "This book is
called Edda". Wagner consulted Snorri's Edda in the German editions of
Rühs, Majer and Simrock respectively. From the 14th century onwards the
word Edda was used to signify poetry written in the tradition which Snorri
described. The word Edda, which was not explained by Snorri, appears as a
personal name (of an ancestor of mankind) in the poem "Rigsþula".
Derrick Everett
> Sleep is a state that intervenes between yesterday and tomorrow;
Rats and mice again! I meant, "yesterday and today".