Ishtar
Larry Woodruff
does anyone know why she is standing on the lion?
Christopher B Siren
Larry Woodruff <woo...@scan.missouri.org> wrote:
>I need info on Ishtar especially in one picture she is standing on a lion,
>does anyone know why she is standing on the lion?
Well, I can speculate anyway...
The lion is often associated with Ishtar and with some of her other near
eastern analogs. I think it has something to do with her role as goddess
of war. The lioness is a rather potent hunter. To read the myths that
Isthar shows up in, get a hold of Stephanie Dalley's
_Myths_of_Mesopotamia_. To read the myths about her Sumerian
analog/predecessor, try to find Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth by
Wolkstein & Kramer. I'm pretty sure that Astarte/Athtart/Ashteroth and
Anat/Qdsh have also been pictured standing on a lion.
Oh, and you could check out my Assyro-Babylonian mythology FAQ too for a
brief bit on the Queen of the Morning and the Evening Star at:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/assyrbabyl-faq.html.
Chris Siren ICQ# 17091740
cbs...@hopper.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren
Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html
UNH Observatory: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/observatory.html
John E. M.
>
> I need info on Ishtar especially in one picture she is standing on a lion,
> does anyone know why she is standing on the lion?
You might try reading The Read Lion by Maria S.
--
John E. Myers, AEC * "All things come round to
3D Graphics/Animation * him who will but wait."
mye...@gactr.uga.edu * LONGFELLOW
alt.immortal * I have time. *
Robin
mye...@gactr.uga.edu wrote:
> Larry Woodruff wrote:
> >
> > I need info on Ishtar especially in one picture she is standing on a lion,
> > does anyone know why she is standing on the lion?
>
> You might try reading The Read Lion by Maria S.
If that is supposed to mean The Red Lion by Maria Szepes, you might also check
out Walt Disney's The Lion King which is as closely related. The Red Lion is a
novel about an alchemist. Alchemy is not at all historically related to
anything BC, however much Mrs. Szepes insists on it.
Robin
http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html
GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & World of Darkness resources
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
joshua geller
Robin <robin_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>If that is supposed to mean The Red Lion by Maria Szepes, you might also check
>out Walt Disney's The Lion King which is as closely related. The Red Lion is a
>novel about an alchemist. Alchemy is not at all historically related to
>anything BC, however much Mrs. Szepes insists on it.
There are alchemical allegories in the New Testament.
There were Alexandrian alchemists.
There's this Babylonian battery from some hundreds BC.
Where do you get your information that there were no alchemists BC?
j.
Robin
dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
> In article <7atucv$v3f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Robin <robin_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >If that is supposed to mean The Red Lion by Maria Szepes, you might also
check
> >out Walt Disney's The Lion King which is as closely related. The Red Lion is
a
> >novel about an alchemist. Alchemy is not at all historically related to
> >anything BC, however much Mrs. Szepes insists on it.
>
> There are alchemical allegories in the New Testament.
Like what? Is that a matter of interpretation? You mean the water-to-wine
miracle?
> There were Alexandrian alchemists.
And what exactly did they do?
> There's this Babylonian battery from some hundreds BC.
Yes, I know. And there are batteries in my Walkman. But were they made by an
alchemist?
I am not saying that there was no chemistry BC. They had potions, they made
alloys, but that is not alchemy. Alchemy is a magical tradition dating back to
the Middle Ages which was based on transmutation of matter as an allegory for
the transmutation of the mind. Now, alchemy did some good for chemistry, and
the words are related, but the alchemist primarily strives for a kind of
enlightenment.
Now Mrs. Szepes claims (I am referring to her non-fictional Academia Occulta)
that the art of Alchemy like all other magical arts is derived from practices
developed in Atlantis, back when we all were gods. Trouble is, there is no
scientific evidence for that. This is a matter of belief, and if you want to
believe it, fine. But I think it is grossly wrong to relate the depiction of a
lion on an artifact from 2.000 BC to a magical tradition of 1000+ AD.
Furthermore, there may be times when a lion is a lion is a lion.
Carl KICE Brown
>
>
> > There's this Babylonian battery from some hundreds BC.
>
> Yes, I know. And there are batteries in my Walkman. But were they made by an
> alchemist?
Perhaps -- don't those Walkman batteries transmute matter and
thus
transmute thy mind?
>
> I am not saying that there was no chemistry BC. They had potions, they made
> alloys, but that is not alchemy. Alchemy is a magical tradition dating back to
> the Middle Ages which was based on transmutation of matter as an allegory for
> the transmutation of the mind. Now, alchemy did some good for chemistry, and
> the words are related, but the alchemist primarily strives for a kind of
> enlightenment.
Okay -- so where does Taoist alchemy fit into your schema? Can
you expand
your operational definition of "alchemy" to include that tradition?
If so, perhaps
it can also be expanded to include other ancient traditions that I
presume you'd
rather include in your operational definition of "chemistry"? One of
the things
I enjoy about my favorite curmudgeon of alt.mythology (AKA josh) is
that he's
only too happy to counter our sweeping generalizations, albeit often
with some of
his own. All in all it leads us to review our definitions and
categorizations.
Furthermore, this time josh elicited from you relevant information
about Mrs.
Szepes's claims (see below).
> Now Mrs. Szepes claims (I am referring to her non-fictional Academia Occulta)
> that the art of Alchemy like all other magical arts is derived from practices
> developed in Atlantis, back when we all were gods. Trouble is, there is no
> scientific evidence for that. This is a matter of belief, and if you want to
> believe it, fine. But I think it is grossly wrong to relate the depiction of a
> lion on an artifact from 2.000 BC to a magical tradition of 1000+ AD.
>
> Furthermore, there may be times when a lion is a lion is a lion.
Except when he sits on a cigar; then lion is simply his
"moniker".
--
Kice Brown
Lone Tree & Iowa City
joshua geller
Robin <robin_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <7atvdg$rck$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
>> In article <7atucv$v3f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> Robin <robin_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> >novel about an alchemist. Alchemy is not at all historically related to
>> >anything BC, however much Mrs. Szepes insists on it.
>> There are alchemical allegories in the New Testament.
> Like what?
Dear Robin,
I'll tell you sometime.
>> There were Alexandrian alchemists.
>And what exactly did they do?
Meet me under the appropriate circumstances.
>> There's this Babylonian battery from some hundreds BC.
> Yes, I know. And there are batteries in my Walkman. But were they made by an
> alchemist?
I've been doing alchemy since 1970. I've done workings in the
vegetable and animal kingdoms. Perhaps I will describe one or more of
them to you sometime.
How long have you been doing alchemy?
Which individual works within the Art have you done?
j.
Robin
dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
> > Yes, I know. And there are batteries in my Walkman. But were they made by an
> > alchemist?
>
> I've been doing alchemy since 1970. I've done workings in the
> vegetable and animal kingdoms. Perhaps I will describe one or more of
> them to you sometime.
>
> How long have you been doing alchemy?
>
> Which individual works within the Art have you done?
>
> j.
>
That's not exactly an answer to my question, is it? You're not making any
statement to any point I made. Well, I am not attacking you nor your beliefs,
but still I can't see evidence for alchemy around 2.000 BC. Ah, and I don't
need to be an automobile constructor to know there were none in 2.000 BC.
Robin
cbr...@mail.pmeh.uiowa.edu wrote:
> Robin wrote:
> >
> > I am not saying that there was no chemistry BC. They had potions, they made
> > alloys, but that is not alchemy. Alchemy is a magical tradition dating back
to
> > the Middle Ages which was based on transmutation of matter as an allegory
for
> > the transmutation of the mind. Now, alchemy did some good for chemistry, and
> > the words are related, but the alchemist primarily strives for a kind of
> > enlightenment.
>
> Okay -- so where does Taoist alchemy fit into your schema? Can
> you expand
> your operational definition of "alchemy" to include that tradition?
No, I can't. I don't know anything about Taoist alchemy. Neither did the
Sumerians. And can you fit the Red Lion into Taoist alchemy? Is it a symbol
they used, probably not knowing what a lion was?
> If so, perhaps
> it can also be expanded to include other ancient traditions that I
> presume you'd
> rather include in your operational definition of "chemistry"?
I take my view on alchemy from writings on magic published in the Western
world. The word itself is said to be derived from Arabic al kimiya, the magic
of the Black Land (=Khem / Egypt). My sources say that the tradition may have
developed from the Egyptian art of making alloys which was sometimes
connected with magical operations; but the tradition of alchemy as it is
understood in said sources (i. e. a means of enlightenment) is only about as
old as its name, ca. 7th century AD when the Arabs invaded Egypt. Ah, and my
dates are more precise now than in my last post because I had the leisure to
check it up now.
> One of
> the things
> I enjoy about my favorite curmudgeon of alt.mythology (AKA josh) is
> that he's
> only too happy to counter our sweeping generalizations, albeit often
> with some of
> his own. All in all it leads us to review our definitions and
> categorizations.
Some people carry their beliefs like a weapon, mistaking assumptions for
facts. I am not saying that there is no way something which we nowadays may
call alchemy may have existed at 2.000 BC, it's just that I cannot see any
facts speaking for that assumption.
Anyway, we are going off-off-topic here. We still don't know why Ishtar is
depicted with that lion.
Larry Caldwell
dejanews.com writes:
> Anyway, we are going off-off-topic here. We still don't know why Ishtar is
> depicted with that lion.
Has anybody checked Christopher Siren's FAQ? IIRC, the lion was a solar
symbol to the ancient Babylonians, and would fit well with
Ishtar/Ashtoreth/Astarte's journey to the underworld to rescue
Tammuz/Dumuzi and return life to the world.
You understand this is just speculation based on the language of symbols,
and is taken completely out of context. I have never seen the carving in
question.
-- Larry
Carl KICE Brown
>
> In article <7av85n$4gq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robin_pfeifer@my-
> dejanews.com writes:
>
> > Anyway, we are going off-off-topic here. We still don't know why Ishtar is
> > depicted with that lion.
>
> Has anybody checked Christopher Siren's FAQ? IIRC, the lion was a solar
> symbol to the ancient Babylonians, and would fit well with
> Ishtar/Ashtoreth/Astarte's journey to the underworld to rescue
> Tammuz/Dumuzi and return life to the world.
>
>
I've been doing lately in various archaeastronomy tomes, of the
various
patterns Ishtar (the Planet) makes as she (or he if Mayan)
approaches
the sun and disappears (journey to the underworld?) in the
brilliance
for various numbers of days.