Gnostic, I have skimmed your
Timeless Myths and
Dark Mirrors of Heaven and you certainly have done a great job
Thanks.
Then you do understand that though I may not be professional, nor qualified, but I am no novice, concerning myths.
And I can tell you that though I am less familiar with Hindu or Buddhist myths, I know enough about Egyptian myths to know that you are mixing Hindu myths on Mount Meru with Egyptian myth.
I don´t know if you are familiar with the myth of the
World Axis? When studying Comparative Mythology, the most obvious meaning of this is of course the Earth celestial axis and the nocturnal point around which the stars seemingly are revolving on. Here the planets were called "Wandering Stars" by our ancestors and even the contours of the Milky Way was symbolized with several human and animal images which revolves around this celestial point.
But: When dealing with the numerous ancient
Stories of Creation, another central point is important. As our Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation. it also has the Milky Way center around which it revolves "as one unit" as the Mound Meru Myth states.
And just like the planets orbits the Sun because they once were are formatted out of the Sun, the Solar System orbits the Milky Way center because it once was formatted in the Milky Way center. This is (for instants) exactly what the Egyptian creation myth says - together with numerous other creation myths.
Of course neither the Earth celestial axis can be observed by the naked eyes nor can the rotational axis of the Milky Way be observed with our eyes, but this doesn´t mean it isn´t there and that it doesn´t participates in the ancient myths as an explanation of the World cosmogony.
I STILL hold my coins on the Milky Way center explanation as representing Mound Meru as the primeval mound from where the first firm matter was created in our Milky Way, thus underpinning that our ancestors did NOT speak of a creation of the entire Univers, but "just" of the local known part of it, namely the Milky Way.
This is my conclusions from studying the numerous cultural Stories of Creation and I know I´m pretty alone in this view. Which is sad because to me it speaks of the mythical/cosmological collective loss of a natural knowledge, which of course makes it difficult to discuss with people who primarily is brought up with the Abrahamic patriarchal religion where the ancient myths are personified and delivered as pure dogmas which "we all just have to believe" although most of the dogmas are unbelievable.
Sorry, but all this is anachronistic interpretations, something that most creationists do regularly, confusing the timeline of two or more different events into one.
No one knew about the size and properties of universe as we know it now. What they could see in the night sky was the extent of “their world”, “their universe”. No ancient civilisations understood the universe having more than one galaxy, let alone tens of billions.
Not the ancient Egyptians, not the Babylonians, not the Hindus, not Buddhists, not the Mayans, etc, with their respective cosmologies and astronomy.
In fact, none of them knew that the Sun itself is a star. Everyone back then assumed that the sun was different to those stars they could see, back then.
No one knew before 1919 (look up Edwin Hubble or Hooker Telescope) that there was more than one galaxy. Everyone before Hubble’s discovery, thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy, the whole universe.
Although Andromeda and Triangulum could be seen without telescopes, they assumed they were just stars.
For the few centuries after Galileo, when telescopes were used before 1919, astronomers revised their views on Andromeda and Triangulum, and thought these were nebulae, and still part of the Milky Way.
Only when Hubble looked through the Hooker Telescope that he discovered they were galaxies from the Milky Way. And over time in the 20th century, many more galaxies were discovered.
You are mixing what we know today about the Milky Way and the universe, with what the Hindus, Egyptians and Mayans could see, and what they could see were very limited without powerful telescopes.
All you are doing, is interpreting the Mount Meru myth with what we know today about the universe, and even then, you are wrong. Wrong about interpretations, wrong about modern astronomy.
The Milky Way centre isn’t a mountain or a mound. And judging by the size of Meru, way too small to be a galactic centre.
The total diameter of the Milky Way is between 100,000 and 120,000 light years, while the centre is between 26 and 28 thousand light year in diameter. Our Sun is about 27,000 light years away from the centre.
The point is that your Mount Meru don’t match the MW’s galactic centre in size (eg in diameter). Your Meru supposedly to be 85 times that of Earth, but the sun itself is about 109 times the Earth’s size in diameter.
How can Solar System revolve around the Mount Meru, if the sun is bigger than Meru?
You are not making sense, not Subduction Zone.
You are also wrong about the Solar System being made from Milky Way’s galactic centre.
The current theory is that the Solar System was formed from the gas, dust and heavier elements after older stars near Solar System current location went “supernova” or stars that had gone from red giant stage to white dwarf stage.
Our Sun is at least a third generation star, categorised as Population I stars, because the core have more heavier elements (eg oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and all the way up to iron) than the older generations - Population II and Population III stars.
More ancient stars, Population III stars, were more massive and shorter lifespan, because it consumed hydrogen atoms more quickly than less massive stars. But during the majority of lifecycle of Population III stars, they contained no elements heavier than helium, until they either start fusing helium into heavier elements (red giant stars) or the more massive stars exploded as supernova events.
How the stars end depends very much on the star’s mass.
Stars that have similar mass as the sun, will go through the red giant and white dwarf stages.
There are lots of stars, much older than the Sun, inside the Milky Way. All those stars labelled as white dwarf, were formerly main sequence stars, like the sun, with similar size mass as the sun, but when it run out of hydrogen atoms into helium, it might start fusing helium into carbon, oxygen or nitrogen atoms, turning a main sequence stars into red giant. The star will grow in size, hence red giant, but the outer layers of the star will stripped away, until all that is left of the star, is the core. The star’s core becomes a white dwarf star.
That white dwarfs can be seen today, indicate that these star remnants are much older than our Sun.
The nearest white dwarf (Sirius B) is the binary system of Sirius, about 8 or 9 light years away.
Stars that explode, is when the core in massive stars completely collapse.
Materials from either red giants or supernovas are what causes newer solar systems.
The Solar System wasn’t form at the centre of the Milky Way.
You are not really being honest here when you think the ancients know a lot more than they actually do.
I am not saying the ancients were stupid. All I am saying is that they were limited to what they are capable of, with the technology that they did have.
If you they do, then where are the evidences for it?
You are basing everything on some stories, some arts works and some buildings, but a lot of these are based on your interpretations on how you wish they are true. So really it is just your opinions.
