Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
Metaphor: King Injured/Impotent
Contents
Sacrificial king, fertility, limp,
injured/restored king
Half-mortal; limping king; one foot
on midget
This
insight was triggered by reading about datura as the lily of Christianity in
the latest Entheos issue,
http://entheomedia.org/datura_gallery
http://www.erowid.org/plants/show_image.php3?image=datura/datura_inoxia_flower4.jpg
and
following that to
The World
of Classical Myth: Gods and Goddesses, Heroines and Heroes
by Carl
A. P. Ruck, Danny Staples
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0890895759
which has
an excerpt at
http://csp.org/chrestomathy/world_of.html
-- "Melampous and his brother Bias were recent new arrivals from the
Egyptian Blacklands. Melampous, himself, was a cattle rustler down at the
Gate-city of Pylos, and a prophet; he had discovered a redeeming new entheogen
called 'rust,' a fungal surrogate for Amanita, by taking the rust that had
grown upon the sacrificial knife as it lodged in a sacred tree or axis mundi
and using it to cure the impotence of the 'king's' son and intended victim. We
will have more to say about 'rust' later, when we investigate the goddess
Demeter. (pages 253-254)"
Whenever
you see "king" in religious/mythic texts, the first meaning is the
initiate's seeming control-power. King
= egoic cybernetic power = kingship liable to death, that must be sacrificed to
gain self-integrity and reconciliation with higher truth. The king's son = delusion about cyberpower
that must be sacrificed as part of discovering high truth and wisdom.
The
limping king or impotence of the king is the partial ego-death after the first
dabblings with entheogens.
Given that
these authors wrote a book about myth that covers entheogens, I need to know if
they understand kingship cybernetics -- philosophy of self-control, self,
control, and time. I don't see strong
indication of that grasp so far. As
with other authors I've studied, I'm realizing that it's not a matter of
*whether* they cover certain elements, such as no-free-will, or kingship as
egoic control -- rather, what matters is the ergonomics of their system of
philosophy.
I have
found their other works such as Persephone's Quest and Apples of Apollo to be
unfulfilling -- their deep scholarship is often lacking the big picture.
Wilber's
coverage of mythic thinking is a flop -- it's correct in such a weak way, that
ultimately he paints a *false* picture of the mystery-religions, yanking Christ
out of that realm and making him a mysterious exceptionally advanced man of the
future. His theory of myth is elegant
-- too bad it so distorts and belittles Hellenism, failing to see Wilber's
exalted Christ (shown missing the crown of thorns around his heart and the
quasi-fatal wound, which no-kingship concept is the whole point) as a product
of that very Hellenism.
So also
can I consider Freke and Gandy's coverage of no-free-will correct in only a
weak way -- like epicycles stuck on with Scotch tape and bubble gum, or like
Lorentz' tangled precursor to Einstein's clear theory of invariance.
What's a
term for a system that is struggling to come together into an elegant crystal,
but is still in a grotesque and distorted state? Such is the current coverage of the confluence of entheogens,
myth, Christianity, religious experiencing, and freewill debate -- the elements
are more or less present, but they don't come together into a satisfying clear
paradigm.
Is it
complete? Have they broken through from
epicycles to a full-on new paradigm?
Have they flipped in inside out correctly, or just lifted a corner here
and there? This distinction is similar
to existing coverage of psychedelics in rock -- the existing studies just
barely scratch the surface and don't really comprehend their subject.
Fertility
was an element in ancient religion -- however, the fertility religion wasn't
first, with a later sophisticated spiritual re-allegorization. The spiritual renewal of controllership
should be seen as primary, with literal fertility being a "later" or
lower derivative.
The
literal king was supposedly sometimes sacrificed for fertility of his kingdom
-- but once you understand the cybernetic meaning of kingship as virtual
controllership illusion that is ended and restarted in ego death, the first
meaning that evermore comes to mind by "sacrificial king for
fertility" is "sacrifice ego delusion to gain restored and continued
viable controllership, now purified and made to conform with higher
experiencing and insight".
The
literal sacrifice of a literal king for literal fertility can only be seen as a
lower shadow cast by the original, primary pattern, which is the cybernetic
self-control phenomenon of "ego death and corrected restart",
triggered originally and primarily by visionary plants.
The
alchemical and Arthurian myth of the injured king with limping leg and injured
genitals refers not to a literal foot, leg, or genitals, but rather, the loss
of accustomed sense of personal power over one's control-thoughts during the
ego-death peak.
King,
kingdom, banquet, death, restoration, fertility all are metaphors for the
initiate ingesting the entheogen, experiencing loss of the sense of
controllership, correction of the mind's mental worldmodel about
controllership, and then a restoration of practical controllership.
http://www.iav.com/~sponge/stuff/achilles/achilles_myth.htm
- excerpts:
Achilles
Heel - The Myth
Achilles
was the son of Thetis and Peleus, the bravest hero in the Trojan war, according
to Greek mythology.
When
Achilles was born, his mother, Thetis, tried to make him immortal by dipping
him in the river Styx. As she immersed him, she held him by one heel and forgot
to dip him a second time so the heel she held could get wet too. Therefore, the
place where she held him remained untouched by the magic water of the Styx and
that part stayed mortal or vulnerable.
Achilles
fought heroically against the Trojans, but was killed by Paris, who shot him with an arrow from behind. Paris's hand was guided by Apollo who took
revenge for the death of his son.
To this
day, any weak point is called an "Achilles heel". We also refer to
the strong tendon that connects the muscles of the calf of the leg with the
heel bone as the "achilles tendon".
http://www.wordfocus.com/Achilles-heel-story.html
-- "Although the above rendition of the Achilles’ story is in current
vogue, Michael Macrone, in his It’s Greek to Me, tells us that Achilles didn’t
always have a vulnerable heel. Oh yes, he had a weak spot, but according to the
original story about Achilles, Homer, in the Iliad, said it was his pride [that
would be the liver-heart; egoic self-control - mh]. Later versions indicate his
weakness was his love for the Trojan princess Polyxena. In his Metamorphoses,
Ovid suggested that Achilles had a vulnerable spot on his body; but the Roman
poet, Statius (c. A.D. 45-96), was the first to imply in a poem that it was his
heel."
Thus the
general idea of "king with bad foot/leg" is the mortal foot which is
the liver-heart-foot which is egoic self-control. Consider a godman: he is half-mortal. His lower half of the 2-level psyche is mortal, and his higher
half is immortal.
Shiva
stands on the midget-self with one foot, so that Shiva is supported by one foot
on the donkey-self and one foot floating in the heavens. One foot is egoic pride (delusion of
personal self-control sovereignty with respect to time), which partially
supports the complete integrated psyche, and one foot is transcendent mystery
so that the initiate "depends on" both egoic delusion and
transcendent mystery assumed to be one's own hidden compassionate higher self
that resides somehow outside time.
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)