Advertisement

Hunab Ku

topic posted Mon, November 7, 2005 - 10:35 PM by  Hoopes
Share/Save/Bookmark
I know this Hunab Ku symbol thing has really caught on amongst 2012 enthusiasts, but I'm curious to know how it started. Can someone tell me on what Precolumbian Maya object (stone sculpture, ceramic vessel, etc.) this symbol actually appears? All you need to say is that it appears on Stela "X" from the site of "_____" or that it appears on a Late Classic vase, Kerr No. ____. There are a huge number of objects, including wonderful painted vases, represented in Justin Kerr's photograph collections at www.famsi.org/research/kerr

Where does the symbol of Hunab Ku appear in an ancient Maya context? Where are there references to this deity other than the Book of Chilam Balam of Chuyamel (a source dating to 1782 that was heavily influenced by post-Conquest Christian teachings)?
posted by:
Hoopes
Advertisement
  • Re: Hunab Ku

    Mon, November 7, 2005 - 10:42 PM
    By the way, there is a copy of Ralph Roys' 1933 translation of The Book of Chilam Balam of Chuyamel online at:

    www.sacred-texts.com/nam/may...bc00.htm

    The specific history of this text is described in the Introduction:

    www.sacred-texts.com/nam/may...m#page_3

    It is probably worth mentioning that any attempt to interpret this text literally or uncritically is no more valid than doing the same thing with the Bible.
    • Re: Hunab Ku

      Mon, November 7, 2005 - 10:48 PM
      The account of "The creation of the world" in this text can be found at:

      www.sacred-texts.com/nam/may...bc15.htm

      It's worth reading, though by no means easy to understand.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Hunab Ku

        Mon, November 7, 2005 - 11:42 PM
        Arguelles claimed in The Mayan Factor that he first encountered the symbol on a pair of textiles which he found in the possession of a Mayan elder - obviously textiles of contemporary origin, so I don't know when or where the mandala-like Hunab Ku image first appeared...?
        • Re: Hunab Ku

          Wed, November 9, 2005 - 2:40 PM
          In other words, the Hunab Ku symbol could easily have been introduced to the Mayas in 1967 by a hippie tourist with a ying-yang T-shirt (or was it tye-dye?).

          There is a huge amount of ancient Maya art out there. If anyone can find a representation of the Hunab Ku symbol that dates earlier than Arguelles' visit, please let me know.
          • Re: Hunab Ku

            Thu, November 10, 2005 - 4:14 AM
            The figure popularly known as Hunab Ku appears in the Nuttall codex, (according to John Major Jenkins), though in a rectangular format. The Nuttall Codex is a pre-conquest Mixtec document, (circa 1060 AD) named after Zelia Nuttall, the scholar who identified and published it, and it is housed in the Museum of Mankind of the British Museum in London. It is on 47 leaves of animal skin. The best available reproduction of the symbol can be seen in Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 p.329 or Beyond 2012 p.174. The circular versions are, as far as I know, modern renditions, as started by Jose Arguelles in the Mayan Facor (though he also shows rectangular copies).

            A paperback version of the Nuttall Codex is available from Amazon.com, but I haven’t got a copy, so I did a Google image search on a restricted access site, that has the whole codex online. If you google “nuttall codex” you will find this page:
            www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/h...e/nuttall/

            but it accessible to memers only, so if you hit the Google cache button, you will get a cached version.That page gives the jpg titles for 86 plates of the codex. Feed these into a Google image search (nuttallpl101; nuttallpl102, etc), and you will see miniatures of all the plates. You have to be a member to get the enlarged versions. However, at the very small size viewed, I couldn’t see the symbol in question. This means it must be quite small. I’m thinking of buying the paperback now you have piqued my curiosity.

            Cheers

            Straydog
            • Re: Hunab Ku

              Thu, November 10, 2005 - 9:31 PM
              This makes sense to me, since the design looks central Mexican rather than anything typically Mayan. I know the Nuttall Codex. In fact, I've got a copy of it (at my office though, not at hand). You're correct in identifying it as Mixtec, with an Early Postclassic date (about a century or so after the lowland Maya "collapse").

              The Nuttall Codex has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Mayas (the Mixtecs lived far to the north and west of Maya territory, between Puebla and Oaxaca). That the circular versions of the design are modern renditions doesn't surprise me at all. They could have been copied from the 1975 Dover Publications paperback edition of the Nuttall Codex.

              It's odd that an Early Postclassic Mixtec design would come to be associated with the Maya name Hunab Ku. Jenkins calls it "a Mesoamerican design commonly referred to as Hunab Ku," but I don't know of any scholars who ever called it that!. It's even more puzzling how this symbol came to have calendrical associations. There is no evidence that the Mixtecs ever kept the Long Count calendar that points to 2012. They didn't even write in bar-and-dot numerals, expressing numbers as strings of beads instead.

              The Nuttall Codex mostly recounts royal genealogy and documents the exploits of a Mixtec ruler named Eight Deer Jaguar-Claw, who lived from 1011 to 1050. It includes dates and counts of days, but is not an almanac or calendrical document at all.
              • Re: Hunab Ku

                Fri, November 11, 2005 - 11:53 AM
                The Nuttall codex symbol is often used to represent Hunab Ku, who is often said to be located at Galactic Centre, but what has this got to do with the Long Count termination point?

                At the Yucatan site of Tancah, the murals “show striking similarities to the designs of pre-conquest Mixtec codices from the Mexican highlands…” (Sharer, The Ancient Maya p.413). Sharer also says, “ Thus, as part of Mesoamerica, the ancient Maya were influenced by, and in turn influenced, their neighbouring cultures, such as the Olmecs to the northwest,, on the Gulf coastal plain, the Zapotec and Mixtec of Oaxaca (west of the isthmus), the cultures centered in Teotihuacan and Tula (to the north, in Central Mexico), and the less well-known societies to the southeast in Central America”(Sharer p.20). So, though there could have been cross-over of symbology in this case, (and definitely was in other cases, e.g. in the case of the Toltec Quetzalcoatl adopted by the Yucatec Maya as Kukulcan), I think the initial Hunab-Ku – G symbol connection was actually made by Hunbatz Men, in his 1986 book Religion Ciencia Maya, which was published in English in 1990 as Secrets of Maya Science / Religion.

                Though Men’s book doesn’t show the symbol we are discussing, Men says that the G symbol used by the Maya represents the Milky Way (Men, 1990, p.34), and this was also the case with the G symbol as used by the Teotihuacan people, and the Zapotecs (ibid., p.38). The G symbol as used at Mitla, Oaxaca, Mexico, and as shown on the statue of Xochipilli, god (or goddess according to Men) of the Mexicas (Aztecs) also refers to the Milky Way, according to Men (ibid. p.42). He says, “In my book, The Astronomical Calendars of the Maya and Hunab K’u, I show how the Nahua or Mexica adored Hunab K’u. They worshipped him using the names In Tloke Nahuake and Ipalnemohuani. This god was represented in the Aztec calendar, the so-called Sun Stone. In this present book, I will attempt to demonstrate that the Mexicas, as well as the Maya, worshipped the Milky Way, as represented by the symbolic “G”.” (ibid., p.40-41). In the text applying to Fig. 10 of his book, Men also includes the Mixtecs as venerators of “the sacred “G” as the symbolic representation of the Milky Way.”

                Although Men doesn’t clearly state that Hunab K’u is the Milky Way, he could be thus interpreted in this statement; “The Maya lived integrally worshipping that which is represented by the “G”. I will reveal to you, dear reader, with all due respect for the sacred Hunab’Ku, from whom came my illumination and who enabled me to see it, the place of origin of this form. It is nothing less than our galaxy. Yes, the Milky Way!” (ibid., p.34) Also, the following quote could be thus interpreted: “For the Maya, wherever the symbol of zero is marked, its value is known, for it represents the essence of the beginning, the Logos. It is the form of the seed. Thus, it is said that in order to understand the sacred Hunab’Ku, the Only Giver of Movement and Measure, one must venerate the origin of the zero, the Milky Way, because it is there that the mold for the most ancient things was located.”

                Arguelles met Hunbatz Men in 1985, and he says, “There is no question that my meeting with Humbatz (sic) was the most crucial event in my long history of working with the Mayan material” (Mayan Factor p.40). Arguelles seems to have interpreted the symbol from the Nuttall codex as an example of the Mesoamerican G symbol representing the Milky Way, as described by Men, and also seems to have got the impression that Hunab K’u is the Milky Way. On p.52 of The Mayan Factor, Arguelles describes Hunab K’u as “the galactic core”, and says, “Hunab K’u is usually translated as “One Giver of movement and Measure”. He shows the rectangular version of the Nuttall codex symbol, labelled with Hunbatz Men’s definition: “Hunab K’u: One Giver of Movement and Measure”.

                However, Sharer gives the translation of Hunab K’u as follows: “In perhaps its most fundamental aspect, Itzamna was Hunab Ku, the creator of the universe. “They worshipped a single god who was named Hunab and Zamana, which is to say only one god.” “Hunab Ku” means precisely that in Yucatec Mayan (“hun, “one”; ab, “state of being”; ku, “god”). Itzamna’s role as creator was so remote from everyday affairs, however, that Hunab Ku seems to have figured little in the life of the ancient Maya, and no representations of Hunab Ku have been identified in the codices or elsewhere.”

                So, it seems that Arguelles’ interpretation of Hunbatz Men’s book resulted in the depiction of Hunab Ku as the Nuttall codex symbol, and likewise, resulted in the association of Hunab Ku with Galactic Centre. Since it was Arguelles’ book, the Mayan Factor, and his associated event, Harmonic Convergence, that led to the current widespread interest in the Maya calendars and 2012, (regardless of any errors he made in the book and event – see www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/dspell.htm and www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/harm.htm ), this explains the current use of this symbol to represent Galactic Centre. Since several theories (apart from Arguelles’ own Galactic Synchronisation theory –see www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/1.htm#...Synchro ) have been put forward connecting the 2012 termination point with the centre of the galaxy; e.g.Galactic Alignment – see www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html , Galactic Core Explosion - see www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/7.htm#sphinxstar and Magnetised plasma band theory – see ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/08.htm , the symbol is useful for representing the Galactic Centre area when presenting theories about the end of the 13-baktun cycle in 2012. So, regardless of the likely possibility that the symbol has no real history as a Maya symbol for Galactic Centre, it remains useful in depicting it, since there is no obvious alternative.

                As a matter of interest, Hoopes, could you check your copy of the Nuttall codex, and let us know if you find the and what page it is on?
                • Re: Hunab Ku

                  Fri, November 11, 2005 - 4:48 PM
                  Thanks so much for this helpful research. Unfortunately, I was unable to track down the symbol today. I will post an image of the glyph from the Nuttall in this tribe when I can get my hands on it.

                  Yes, you're right about the Maya being influenced by cultures to the north, though I suspect the similarity of the Yucatan murals to Mixtec codices is due to a common source for both in central Mexico rather than any Mixtec-Maya communication. The role of Teotihuacan in all of this is often underestimated. It was there, and probably at Cuicuilco even earlier, that the Feathered Serpent was manifest as a prominent deity. For some good info on Teo, see archaeology.la.asu.edu/teo

                  My suspicion of Hunab Ku comes from its original context: The Book of Chilam B'alam of Chuyamel. There is no question but that this document had heavy Christian influence, making it difficult to have any confidence that the ancient Maya actually believed in "one god". I do not know of any indigenous, pre-Contact references to Hunab Ku and would be appreciative of information about these. (As Sharer writes, "no representations of Hunab Ku have been identified in the codices or elsewhere").

                  The Maya were also heavily influenced by European culture after the arrival of the Spanish, of course. I could be mistaken, but "Hunab Ku" sounds to me like a term cooked up by a missionary in order to teach the Mayas the first of the Ten Commandments.

                  Rather than synchronization, we may be seeing a case of synchretism.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Hunab Ku

                    Sat, November 12, 2005 - 5:53 AM
                    Thanks for this Hoopes - I look forward to seeing the image. Ferrara, could you tell us what page of The Maya Factor, Arguelles mentions the textiles, please?

                    I have a copy of the rather rare Chilam Balam of Mani, and thought I would share a passage that throws more light on this subject, and seems to support what you said, Hoopes. From p.74 of the Craine/Reindorp version on Oklahoma University press, 1979:

                    Words of Chilam Balam, Priest of Mani

                    “At the conclusion of the Katun 13 Ahau, the Itza will see, perhaps in Tancah, the sign [symbol] of the One God [Hunab Ku], the erect tree (43) which will be shown so that the world will be enlightened. Lords, console yourselves, discord and confusion will be finished, when the bearer of the cross [sign] comes to us. In the future, priests everywhere will be enlightened. Itzamna, (44) your master, will come. Itza, the true god will come to enlighten you. Receive your guests, the bearded ones, who will be bearers of the standard of the true God who shall come to arrange the day of resurrection. The commandments of the true God will be good and the new truth will be substituted for the old one. (In the old books we are taught that the world will change.) (45) The Itza will accept and worship the one True God (46) who comes from heaven. Oh, Itza! Thus enlightened you will believe in Him in the next Katun. Believe my message. I, Chilam Balam, have explained the word of the True God, in the ninth year of the Katun [11] Ahau.”

                    Notes

                    43: The Cross. The symbolof Quetzalcoatl-Kukulcan was also a form of cross, but the cruciform had parts of equal length.
                    44: The supreme god of the Mayas and father of all the other gods.
                    45:
                    46:The Maya text reads “Ku li kul caanale,” “God the holy one of heaven” – a play on the name Kukulcan. Originally an effort to tie Kukulcan of the Itzas closer to the Hunab Ku of the Xiu. Here used for the purposes of Christianity.

                    A controversial appendix:

                    On p. 104-107, note 139 says, “…It appears that the Mayas also thought the Itzas inferior because they had little or no knowledge of the “sacred books”, could not count time, and had little understanding of Maya customs and traditions.” Since Hunbatz Men claims to be of the Itza line, this might explain why his a friend of mine, who attended a week-long workshop in the Yucatan with him, and who is familiar with Maya and Dreamspell calendars, found the Hunbatz Men calendars to be incomprehensible.
                    • Re: Hunab Ku

                      Sun, November 13, 2005 - 7:58 PM
                      In other words, Catholic missionaries of Colonial Mexico were attempting to use the concept of "Hunab Ku" (which they may well have invented) for the "one true God." This is really not so different from its recent adoption by the "Spiritual Left" (the modern antithesis to the Religious Right) to persuade true believers of the power of the galactic center. It's a bit ironic that this concept, a tool of Christian ideologues who sought to destroy traditional Maya culture, has been adopted by others who are now claiming to "discover" and celebrate it.

                      The ancient Maya interest in the Milky Way was not due to any concept of a galaxy with a center, much less a black hole. Rather, they identified the Milky Way as variously the body or the mouth of an enormous cosmic serpent through which our own world passed. It was also the World Tree and the Road to Xibalba. The celetial phenomenon of the Milky Way and its undulations in the sky can be fascinating to observe without ever grasping the concept of a galaxy, much less a black hole at its center.

                      How to explain the coming "galactic alignment"? Well, I'm still trying to identify a professional astronomer who considers the selection of December 21, 2012 for the date of this event to be anything other than fanciful speculation. Galaxies move quite slowly in the grand scheme of things, so how can a single year, much less a single day, be correlated with an "alignment"? The date fits Jenkins' and others' hypothesis, but science works because of a concept known as falsifiability. What would be the circumstances that would indicate that 2012 was *not* the year that corresponds to a galactic alignment? (Whatever happened with the "New Age of Peace" that was supposed to begin on August 17, 1987. If you haven't noticed, it hasn't exactly kicked in yet!)

                      I'm still trying to find the original version of the "Hunab Ku" symbol. Someone must have borrowed my Nuttall and not returned it! (I'll have to track down another copy.)
                      • Re: Hunab Ku

                        Wed, November 16, 2005 - 4:17 PM
                        I spent almost an hour today poring over *both* sides of a 1992 accordion-fold, photographic facsimile of the Codex Nuttall and was not able to find any representation of the "Hunab Ku" glyph.

                        The closest I was able to come was the representation of someone wearing a textile with a black-and-white, interlocking, step-and-fret (also known as "Greek key") design on the right-hand side of p. 17 of the codex. This is not an unusual Mesoamerican design and related designs appear in several different parts of the Nuttall. The step-and-fret motif is best known from the stone mosaic decorations on the walls of ruins at the site of Mitla, in Oaxaca (which is also depicted in the Codex Nuttall), but can be found in many, many pottery designs. It is not specific to Mesoamerica, and also appears in ancient Greece and elsewhere.

                        If someone can tell me what John Major Jenkins was referring to, I'll go back and have another look at the Codex Nuttall. However, whatever is there is not very obvious. Certainly nothing like the symbol reproduced in Jenkins' book.

                        I will also ask Jenkins himself and report back if he replies.
                        • Re: Hunab Ku

                          Thu, November 17, 2005 - 8:58 AM
                          Well, here's what Jenkins has to say:

                          "I'm trying to retrace my steps with this one, as I don't see it in my fascimile copy of the Nuttall codex. There was a romance novel called House of the Dawn by Ryan published in 1914 that used this exact 'Hunab Ku' symbol in its frontispiece design. I assumed it was a fanciful redesign for that publication until I saw it in some academic work; perhaps it was in Zelia Nuttall's interesting study of polar symbology:

                          Nuttall, Zelia 1901 The Fundamental Principles of Old and New World Civilizations: A Comparative Research Based on a Study of the Ancient Mexican Religious, Sociological and Calendrical Systems. Archaeological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum, Vol. II. Harvard University. Salem, MA: Salem Press.

                          and perhaps this is why I misattributed it to the Nuttall codex. As for its connection with 'the sacred G' and/or 'the Galactic Center' it is now apparent that this designation comes from either Arguelles or, more likely in my opinion, Hunbatz Men (Mayan Science and Religion, 1990). Hunbatz Men may claim it comes from his elders, but he and Arguelles worked together on different things in the mid and late 80s, adding confusion to distinguishing real from new age invention in the late 80s. I found and still find, the seeming linguistic connection between Hunab Ku and Hunahpu to be intriguing."

                          This is consistent with what we've been discussing here and it looks as though Dire got it right. Thanks to all of you for the enlightening discussion!
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: Hunab Ku

                            Thu, November 17, 2005 - 1:50 PM
                            I met Hunbatz Men at this New Age convention thingie a few years ago - I read his book... I couldn't make head nor tail of what he was trying to say, and frankly (with all due respect to the Mayan elder) it struck me as gibberish - I came to the conclusion that a lot was lost in the translation, and left it at that...
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Hunab Ku

                      Sun, November 13, 2005 - 9:06 PM
                      > Ferrara, could you tell us what page of The Maya Factor, Arguelles mentions the textiles, please?

                      In my 1987 edition of The Mayan Factor, Arguelles tells the account of finding the Hunab Ku textiles on pp. 31-32 - The accompanying image of Hunab Ku (and presumably the shape of the woven rugs) is rectangular...

                      Thanks to everyone above for the well-researched and articulate ontributions to this discussion...
                      • Re: Hunab Ku

                        Mon, November 14, 2005 - 9:03 PM
                        >>>Thanks to everyone above for the well-researched and articulate ontributions to this discussion...

                        here here.
                        • Unsu...
                           

                          Re: Hunab Ku

                          Wed, November 16, 2005 - 5:36 PM
                          I realize that I am revealing my own personal weakness of sheer vanity here, but if you want to check out my Hunab Ku tattoo (inked on Halloween of 1988), go to my tribe profile and check page 3 of my photo album...
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: Hunab Ku

                            Wed, November 16, 2005 - 5:37 PM
                            CORRECTION: It's on PAGE 2, not 3
                            • Re: Hunab Ku

                              Wed, November 16, 2005 - 6:52 PM
                              revealed weakness? oh, contrare, well disguised machismo more like...e:)
                              • Unsu...
                                 

                                Re: Hunab Ku

                                Wed, November 16, 2005 - 7:33 PM
                                Oh if you really knew me I am anything BUT macho - That photo was a self-conscious attempt at a Jim Morrison pose - and nothing more than that: a pose... Extrovertive streak, yes; machismo, no...

                                No offense taken, however, I assure you... :)
                          • Re: Hunab Ku

                            Wed, November 16, 2005 - 9:52 PM
                            Very prescient of you! I've always thought that Precolumbian (and Precolumbian-inspired) designs made great tattoos. In fact, back around 1989/90 or so I was so taken with the great tattoo renaissance that I actually made up packets of my favorite Central and South American designs and mailed them off to major tattoo artists (Don "Ed" Hardy, the folks at Guilty & Innocent, etc.) in the hope that I'd inspire more Precolumbian ink. I don't know if it worked, but it looks as if you were ahead of the curve! I hope you're still happy with the design. It's a beautiful one, even if it isn't Maya...
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: Hunab Ku

                              Wed, November 16, 2005 - 10:21 PM
                              Thanks! And the placement of the design over my solar plexus was quite deliberate - Arguelles claims (whether you choose to believe him or not) that there is a 'resonant pathway' called the Kuxan Suum which connects each human being at the solar plexus (intuitive center) with the galactic center Hunab Ku - I still fully identify with the image and its placement on my body - There are a lot of nerve endings in the stomach area, that tattoo took two hours to finish in one session and it was the most painful inking I have had to endure, but it was worth it...
                              • Re: Hunab Ku

                                Wed, November 16, 2005 - 10:43 PM
                                > whether you choose to believe him or not

                                It's not my intention to denigrate any of the spiritual contemplation that Arguelles inspires. I just think it's a tad disingenuous to attribute ideas to the ancient Maya when there's no evidence that they actually had them. This should not detract from their present value. Religion, spirituality, and their associated mythologies have always been in a state of constant evolution, although some claim certain beliefs to be timeless.
                            • Re: Hunab Ku

                              Wed, November 16, 2005 - 10:33 PM
                              I just posted two photos of the famous decorated walls at the Mixtec site of Mitla, in Oaxaca, Mexico. It's these walls that are depicted in some of the images in the Codex Nuttall, ones that may have provided the inspiration for the "Hunab Ku" symbol. The geometric designs are probably representations in stone of patterns that were originally made on woven textiles.

                              Incidentally, it was weavers from this part of southern Mexico whose designs were copied and modified to create what are now considered to be "traditional" Navajo rugs. I've always found it somewhat ironic that Navajo purists frown upon Mexican "imitations" when in fact it was the indigenous people of Mexico who were weaving these patterns in cotton cloth centuries before anyone ever saw sheep in Arizona!

                              Unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I'm coming to the conclusion that: 1) the "Hunab Ku" symbol is neither Maya nor even Precolumbian (though it may be Mixtec-inspired), and 2) the concept of "Hunab Ku" was a Colonial invention. If either have anything to do with the galactic center, those associations date no earlier than the last decade of the 20th century.

                              By the way, if anyone would like prints of my "Blood Ceiba" and "In the Dream Palace" images, please send me a personal message. The first is a photo I took of a beautiful tree at the Maya site of Pomoná and the second is of a room in the Palace at Palenque, both taken during a trip to Chiapas last March.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Hunab Ku

    Thu, November 17, 2005 - 5:44 PM
    just found this at mayanmajix.com

    This symbol is called the Galactic Butterfly which is said to represent all of the consciousness that has ever existed in this galaxy. This is all of our physical ancestors both human, animal, reptile, fish, shell fish, plants as well as the consciousness which organized all of the raw material from a whirling disk into stars then planets and solar systems. Big Meaning. So big that the original Maya had no symbol for this. In their civilization it was like having no name for God. Just knowing the concept was good enough. Later this pattern was devised by Toltec or Zapatec weavers as a pattern for blankets and this is where Jose Arguelles came across it. He called it Hunab Ku. The indigenous peoples call it "The Galactic Butterfly". Butterflies are seen as ancestors returning for a visit to physicality. Wearing one of these symbols is very powerful as it broadcasts your reaching to actively join the consciousness of our galaxy.

    check out the site...mayanmajix.com
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Hunab Ku

      Thu, November 17, 2005 - 5:46 PM
      Thanks, Travis... that is a wonderfully intuitive and magical (as opposed to scholarly) interpretation of the symbol...
      • Re: Hunab Ku

        Thu, November 17, 2005 - 6:06 PM
        I agree. I just don't understand why it's necessary to have an association with the Maya to validate the significance of the symbol.

        Why not just say it's *our* symbol (which is is) and that *we* have invented it and assigned deep wisdom of it? Why don't we give credit to what's becoming a valuable consciousness within *our* civilization? After all, it is *we* who have discovered the galactic center with our enlightenment, our science, our money, and our effort.

        It is *we* who are both magical and scholarly, in ways that never cease to amaze.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Hunab Ku

          Sun, November 20, 2005 - 2:04 PM
          according to Adam Rubel of Saq Be (www.sacredroad.org) who is in direct contact with mayan elders, the correct interpretation of Hunab Ku is 'Unity in the Heart of Diversity' (Hun = one or unity; Ab = diversity; Ku = heart)

          the hunab ku symbol is connected to the maya because as Arguelles relates in 'the mayan factor' those who first presented him with the design attributed it to the maya & their knowledge of the yin-yang principle

          we may say that it is our symbol and that we have invented it, which is true enough, but only if we accept that 'we' include those that originally presented it to Jose, and in turn those that had previously passed the symbol onto them. since Jose and his presenters as individual aspects of 'ourself' are closer to the original source than the individuals of Hoopes, Dire, Jenkins, or myself, I will surely accept the contention that there is a mayan connection before i accept that there is no mayan connection.
          and this raises the question, 'who are 'we'?' are we not maya ourselves?

          as for the origin of the term Hunab Ku, the concept certainly did exist among the pre-columbian maya unless your contention is that the spiritual constitution of the maya was so weak and ill-developed that they immediately and seemingly without struggle bought into an entirely new paradime of a 'one true god'

          the idea of hunab ku is recorded in the prophecies of Chilam Balam, who by all accounts lived before the arrival of the spainiards.
          are you saying that the spainiards arrived, then concocted a fairy tail about a mayan prophet which the indigenous people in a move of gullibility unparalleled in the history of civilization immediately swallowed, and based soully on the word of the spainiards they not only accepted the idea of this prophet but they then made up their own texts about his life and prophecy which they religiously maintained for centuries afterword?
          how little respect must you have for the maya & their spirituality to come to such a conclusion?
          these people have resisted genocide and every form of oppression down to the present day chiefly through the strength of their spirituality and conviction that the knowledge must not be lost. it is hardly concieveable that the apparatus behind such conviction is ersatz.

          far more likely, and a perspective far more respectful to the indigenous people, is that Hunab Ku was indeed the 'great spirit' of the pre-conquest maya, and this 'one true god' was a recapitulation of the ancient diety Hunahpu (Hun Ahau, or 1-Lord) ... even in the most ancient olmec conceptions 1-Lord was the principle day sign (1st day of the 52 year calendar round). It is noteworthy that the maya called the calendar round 'Hunab'... and the simple fact that Hunahpu, or Hun Ahau, translates directly to 1-Lord (like y'know, 1-TrueGod)

          that sums up the spiritual aspects of Hunab Ku
          as for the scientific...

          this is what 'professional astromomers' contend. the winter solstice sun can be said to align with the galactic center on any year from about 1982 - 2018. this is because, as you say Hoopes, "Galaxies move quite slowly in the grand scheme of things"... therefor the alignment serves for a number of years. So the maya had a window of 36ish years in which to get the alignment 'right'.
          since the long-count lasts 5125 years we divide 5125 by 36 to see the chances that the 2012 alignment is a mere accident

          this is about 1 in 142

          this is just the YEAR phenomena however. the fact that the DAY falls exactly on a winter solstice is perfect... perfect over a span of 3000 years from when the longcount originated. assuming this also was pure chance we figure 1 in 365.

          that the two chances, by chance, occur together we get 1 in about 52,000 (365 x 142 = 51,830)

          so by a purely random end-date you would have to have over 50-thousand cycles to find one to match the precision of the olmec/maya

          plus, the maya equation is more focused than the 36 year span from 1982 to 2018.

          the harmonic convergence (end of 22 calendar rounds (prophecy of 13heavens & 9hells)) occured in 1987; the long count ends in 2012

          this then describes a window of 25-26 years, narrowing down the 36.

          professional astronomers will tell you that the most precise winter solstice galactic alignment occured winter solstice 1998. (just days before the beginning of 1999)

          this occures right in the center of the two cycle endings, 12 - 13 years after Harmonic convergence and 14 years before the end of the long-count.
          now i ask you, were the creators of the long count onto something or simply the luckiest numerologists in 5200 years of history?

          did the maya know of a black hole at the center of the galaxy?

          Hoopes, you said yourself the milky way was conceptualized as a serpent with a prominent mouth
          to the maya a serpent's mouth was more than a simple anatomical feature of an animal, it was a metaphor for a threshold of transformation, a gateway into another world through which shamans travelled and ancestors were summoned
          modern scientists (eg. Carl Sagan) hypothesize that black holes are extra-dimensional doorways through spacetime.... termed worm-holes. the difference between the worm-hole and the serpent-mouth is linguistic, metaphorically they are identical

          i think you're a bit off when you say the maya considered the milky way to be 'the road to xibalba' (or Xibalba Be). The 'milky' part of the milky way was conceptualized as the Saq Be, or White/Spiritual Road. The Xibalba Be was the dark-rift of the milky way. It is significant that the dark rift (viewed from earth) leads right to the center of the galaxy where it ends... hence dark-rift = road to the underworld, or the serpent's mouth.

          this is stuff just off the top of my head. please do not underestimate the magic, scholarship, or spiritual strength of the maya... afterall *they* are *we*

          mitikuye oyasin
          namaste
          in lakech
          • Re: Hunab Ku

            Sat, August 19, 2006 - 5:02 AM
            I have just revived this thread due to a discovery while looking through a 1922 edition of Herbert J. Spinden's Ancient Civilizations of Mexico and Central America. On p.220, I found the "Hunab Ku symbol" in its rectangular form. It is exactly the same as the image shown In Jenkins' Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 on p.329 (even with the slight kinks in the border, though it is slightly larger). This time, it is shown in a horizontal position, rather than the vertical rectangle in MC2012.

            Under the picture it says, "Fig. 80. Mexican Blanket with the Design representing Sand and Water”

            The image appears in a chapter about the Aztecs, and in the text it says”…"The textile decorations in vogue at the coming of the Spaniards can be restored from the pictures in codices...”.

            Geoff
            • Re: Hunab Ku & the Maya

              Sat, August 19, 2006 - 11:43 AM
              With respect for the work represented here...

              It is important to understand the deeper elements of symbolism when looking at a symbol as profound as the "Hunab Ku". It is a composite of elements including spirals, 'steps', polarity, four/eight directions, symbols of ascension, and then the combining of these elements to create something far more. All the elements are already in other symbolism of much of the Americas, and all the elements can be seen carved in stone at various sacred sites around Mexico. Whether this symbol is of Mayan or other culture's origin is partly missing the point, because it is in the unification of the elements described that an important set of teachings is encoded, and the viewer is encouraged to find out more. It is a veritable 'medicine wheel' in itself.
              As Hunbatz teaches, the mantras and symbols are teachings. Ku'ku'lkan is a teaching about the duality, the number four, vibration and the serpent energy. It is much more than just a name. In the East there were the Kumara, another group of profound mantras, well known to Mayan esoteric folk...
              The word 'Maya' means Ma - meaning Mother, and Ya (from the verb Yaxche) meaning seperate from. As agreed by the meeting between Hunbatz and Tibetan Lamas, 'Maya' is a teaching in itself. It teaches about the 'illusion' of separation from the Mother. Hunbatz' research revealed the Cara Maya in Greece and the Naga Maya in India, and he asserts that the Maya were teachers in many places.
              In all the histories of esoteric art and symbolism, the initiates were taught about essential truths and then sent (or allowed) to visit places and structures where they would learn more. They would have to report back to the group/school/teacher on what they found. Some symbols were initiatory in themselves, and many who have meditated with stellae will testify to energies contained within stones.
              And what so many conveniently forget is that thousands of sacred texts, scrolls, even stellae, were deliberately destroyed by the Spanish and thousands of traditional peoples, their priests, shamans and elders, were murdered for nothing more than 'being Mayan'. How can anyone expect much information to survive and be available for examination now after so much destruction and genocide? And De Landa and his cronies baptised and murdered hundreds at a time, to the extent that De Landa was recalled to Spain, repented and then came back to Mexico to write (badly) about the people he helped to almost wipe out. It's like Julius Ceasar writing about the Druids, Hitler writing about the Jews, British missionaries writing about 'Africa', and colonial US people writing about Native Americans!

              As for the Maya and their connection to the rest of Mexican cultures, it is beyond doubt that the Olmec were inhabiting an area which extended at least from southern Guatemala up into areas of central Mexico. The sites that they constructed were even built upon by subsequent cultures. They came and went, as their given name actually signifies. The Maya inhabited the more southern area that the Olmec previously occupied, while other groups occupied other parts of what was also Olmec territory.
              There is much nonsense by the archeological posse about the Olmec, including that they had no metal which is contrdicted by the fact that they created such perfect sculptures in hard stone. I have seen un-oxidised metal found in an Olmec site showing very clearly that they did have metal and could easily have made tools for carving. And as the Olmec came and went, as artists they would never have dreamt of conveniently leaving their tools behind, for future archeologists to find! And this assertion of 'no metal' in the Americas is made more nonsense by the discovery of alloy metal clamps holding stones in Tihuanako in Bolivia, which can only have been made with molten ores. The astronomical dating of Tihuanako is pre-Ice Age.

              My point is that there is so much rubbish being written about and suggested by archeologists and anthropologists (mostly for the sake of 'funding'), that it is easy to miss the truth when sourcing information from such groups. An ex-paymaster general of INAH told me that there are huge warehouses the size of aircraft hangars (in Edo. de Mex.), full of millions of artifacts which may never be shown, often because they do not fit the consensus models. The recent excavations of huge pyramids (with tunnels) in Bosnia, will be part of the dismantling of some of the disinformation of the past, and will add to the excellent work of Hancock, Bauval, and others.
              With only 10% of Nah Chan (Palenque) excavated, how can anyone say that they 'know' about such an extensive site. There is a very long way to go before many such sites and their cultures are properly understood.

              It is well known in traditional groups in Mexico is that there were many sacred centres which were used by all the cultures.
              Malinalco has an Aztec temple site, but on the hills above is a huge unexcavated city which long predates the Aztec. The word 'malinalli' describes the 'serpent energy' and is an indication of the initiatory centre and its power. Various people have told me about how lords and priests from different cultures were trained there.
              Similarly there were places known to all the groups; places of initiations, specific ceremonies, big meetings, shamanistic training, priestly training. Xochicalco was a place of periodic meetings of peoples from all over the continent. It was like a 'U.N' of the Americas!
              Mexico was never a group of isolated cultures, competing with each other all the time, as some people suggest.

              And not all the peoples of the area always practised human sacrifice (as many of the archeo-bunch would have us all believe). It was the Aztec and the multi-cultural Toltec who got into all kinds of blood thirsty rituals. It was Moctezuma's Toltec beliefs (that maybe Cortes was the return of the prophet) which led him to betray his people by allowing the Spanish to see the Aztec defences. It was his Toltec beliefs which led him to be sacrificing 80,000 people a year to try to apease the 'Gods', and delay the coming prophesied 'Nine Hell Cycles', and it was this abuse of power which led Cortes to believe that his mission was a truly 'Holy' one. Cuahtemoc did not have the same beliefs and simply fought a 4 year guerilla war.
              Many Maya say that their culture did not do human sacrifice and this is a nasty lie by the invaders. The only cited archeo-evidence for it is a few bones at Chichen Itza cenote which do not make a whole skeleton and many of which are engraved, a mural at Bonampak showing decapitation during time of war, and a few other symbolic pictures. The Yucatan Maya of the tradition say they would never have put dead bodies in their only supply of drinking water, and thousands of years of living there testify to that fact. There were incidences of blood letting for specific reasons, and people died in times of war (the USA has 'sacrificed' millions in its short history, and continues to this day!). Yet the books and guides state categorically that the Maya were throwing young virgins into cenotes and much more speculative nonsense!

              What is certain is that during solstices and equinoxes, the thousands of sites across the region were full of ceremonial people, burning copal, chanting, dancing, playing music, etc and that this practice extended into the whole continent. Just imagine the intense energy of so many people celebrating simultaneously!
              And what is certain is that the many cultures were united by the knowledge that the Sun is a living being(s) and that to honour this giver of life is to honour life itself. Many of the sacred sites were also solar 'collectors' (Oxkintok for example). Hunbatz Men and others in Mexico teach about drawing solar energy into the body with the use of mantras and hand positions, just as was practised in other parts of the world.

              Please do not look for information about Mexican civilisations only in books and archeological papers. Truth is to be found on all levels and from all possible sources. How else can we make up for the loss of so much important text? Archeology will also become a spiritual pursuit, and will involve training in the receiving of information from elementals and 'spirits', as well as journeying in trance and out-of-body states. This will require students to be highly initiated and open to working in energy body states, as well as with altars and ceremony. There is more truth to be found outside of books, however valuable they are. It seems to me to be very important not to judge cultures by the available information, and not to draw many conclusions that are not confirmed with the people in the traditions now. They are mostly open to be consulted.

              And I say this with great respect for the dedication, time, and effort that so many have applied to the studies so far. Although incomplete, the body of knowledge is commendable.

              In Lak'ech
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Hunab Ku & the Maya

                Sun, August 20, 2006 - 12:09 PM
                Geoff,

                Fascinating! Thanks for posting this!



                Psi,

                What about the 5 or 6 sacrificial victims found in Pacal's tomb?
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Hunab Ku & the Maya

                  Sun, August 20, 2006 - 3:50 PM
                  Tree: Who says that they are "sacrificial"?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Hunab Ku & the Maya

                    Sun, August 20, 2006 - 4:01 PM
                    According to some Mayan Elders that Aluna Joy Yahxkin has spoken to the Hunab Ku is a symbol of the ever spiraling Universe and is pronounced "Heya" - as you can so often hear in the Native chants, it is a call to unite with Creator.

                    Also, in a very interesting book I read called "The Return of the Builders" written by the first hand disciple of Yoganannda, Hu =animal and Man = angel (which has mysteriously been taken off the shelves in the last 5 years)

                    So there is ALOT to the word HU that can be found....

                    Thank the Stars for Pacal Votan for his fore-sight - and to Jose for his in-sight and dedication to spreading the Words of Prophecy....

                    XATA ZAC XATA AMAC
                    ("Only may there be peace in your presence")
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Hunab Ku & the Maya

                    Sun, August 20, 2006 - 9:36 PM
                    Star, are you questioning the evidence for human sacrifice?

                    Words can have a big influence on how we think of things. Try the exercise of substituting "gift" and "gifting" for "sacrifice" and see where that takes you.
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Hunab Ku & the Maya

                      Mon, August 21, 2006 - 1:07 PM
                      heya Star,

                      I guess most immediately i'm going off of Schele and Freidel's 'A Forest of Kings' where they do a sort of historical-fiction narrative of the dedication of the tomb

                      In this narrative the victims are basically butchered and tossed in a stone box,,, if memory serves

                      and I seem to remember reading something more definite about the remains a long time ago... although attempts on my part to find any kind of forensic info hasn't yielded anything

                      this is a mystery i've been intrigued by for some time

                      peace
              • Re: Hunab Ku & the Maya

                Sun, August 20, 2006 - 9:31 PM
                This post is so filled with misconceptions and misinformation that it's hard to know where to begin taking it apart.

                "The word 'Maya' means Ma - meaning Mother, and Ya (from the verb Yaxche) meaning seperate from. As agreed by the meeting between Hunbatz and Tibetan Lamas, 'Maya' is a teaching in itself. It teaches about the 'illusion' of separation from the Mother. Hunbatz' research revealed the Cara Maya in Greece and the Naga Maya in India, and he asserts that the Maya were teachers in many places."

                It may have this meaning to *you* and Hunbatz Men *today*, but I think you'd have a hard time coming up with any convincing scholarship that this interpretation dates any earlier than the past few years. I doubt any professional linguists would give "Maya" (or "yaxche", for that matter) the etymology or glosses you offer.

                The meanings of symbols, of course, are constantly being invented and re-invented. The swastika is just one example. It was a perfectly good and revered symbol in India and Nepal before it was chosen by Hitler as a symbol of the Third Reich. Christian crosses also took on new meanings when the Ku Klux Klan began setting fire to them. Everyone from rock bands to cable TV shows to corporate advertisers is giving new meanings to symbols all the time.

                Personally, I don't have a great deal of confidence in the scholarship of Hunbatz Men, who himself is hardly immune to the influence of attention, fame, and financial reward. He can assert all kinds of things about the Maya. That doesn't make them so.

                "There is much nonsense by the archeological posse about the Olmec, including that they had no metal which is contrdicted by the fact that they created such perfect sculptures in hard stone."

                Why do you need metal to make sculptures from hard stone?

                "And this assertion of 'no metal' in the Americas is made more nonsense by the discovery of alloy metal clamps holding stones in Tihuanako in Bolivia, which can only have been made with molten ores."

                Who says there was "no metal" in the Americas? This is a pathetic case of a "straw man" argument. Archaeologists have long known about North American use of copper and meteoric iron, the casting of gold in many parts of the Americas, and extensive bronze smelting and casting industries from the north coast of Peru to Bolivia. They've even done experiments to replicate the technology! The Spanish collected bronze maceheads that were used in warfare by the Inka during the time of the Conquest.

                "The astronomical dating of Tihuanako is pre-Ice Age."

                Not really. On top of that, extensive ceramic, architectural, and sculptural cross-dating, as well as extensive radiocarbon dating, demonstrates that a pre-Ice Age dating is extremely unlikely.

                "My point is that there is so much rubbish being written about and suggested by archeologists and anthropologists (mostly for the sake of 'funding'), that it is easy to miss the truth when sourcing information from such groups."

                Okay, what are some *specific* examples of "rubbish" that are coming from archaeologists and anthropologists for the sake of funding? This is a pretty damning accusation. I hope you're prepared to back it up with something more than anecdotes and hearsay.

                "The recent excavations of huge pyramids (with tunnels) in Bosnia, will be part of the dismantling of some of the disinformation of the past, and will add to the excellent work of Hancock, Bauval, and others."

                The features in Bosnia are still best described as "pyramid-shaped hills" and I have yet to see any hard evidence to persuade me otherwise. What persuades you?

                Anyone who is considering taking seriously any claims that they are pyramids should consider the background of Sam Osmanagich, the Houston businessman who's behind the hype. He has an online book called "The World of the Maya" that is filled with misconceptions and wild speculations:

                www.alternativnahistorija.com/WM.htm

                (The picture of him getting a kiss from a dolphin at the end of the text is cute, but I've already pointed out that what he has to say doesn't hold much water.)

                Jump to the section on "The Maya between Lemuria and the Year 2012" for some comments relevant to this tribe. Osmanagich expresses his admiration for 19th century scholars Brasseur de Bourbourg and Augustus Le Plongeon, both of whom were regarded as crackpots for their ideas about the Maya and the "lost continent" of Atlantis. The quality of his scholarship on ancient Mesoamerica doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in his research on the pyramid-shaped hills in Bosnia. He's published a book on the Bosnian "Pyramid of the Sun" before even confirming that it's what he claims!

                "With only 10% of Nah Chan (Palenque) excavated, how can anyone say that they 'know' about such an extensive site."

                Well, for one thing, much of what hasn't been excavated *has* been extensively mapped. Furthermore, not surprisingly, the part that's been excavated is also the part that contains the largest buildings. The Temple of Inscriptions and the Cross Group have both provided extensive, well-preserved hieroglyphic texts that have been almost completely deciphered. The buildings of the Palace and more recently discovered buildings (such as Temple XIX, see mesoweb.com/books/new.html ) have provided lots of sculpture, texts, and artifacts. The site was first discovered in the late 1700s and has been extensively explored ever since. I guess that might by why people say they "know" something about this site! For a small sample of what *is* known, check out:

                mesoweb.com/palenque/index.html

                I recently watched some lectures by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval in a 2-disc DVD set called "Monuments to Life". I found their arguments to be as completely implausible as recent claims by Bob Cornuke that he's found evidence for Noah's Ark in the mountains of Iran. Anyone who has considered the data carefully and still thinks that Hancock and Bauval's work is "excellent" has lost all credibility with me. These guys are about as trustworthy as Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart (both of whom, of course, still have huge followings and lots of "funding").

                "Please do not look for information about Mexican civilisations only in books and archeological papers. Truth is to be found on all levels and from all possible sources."

                It's only fair to point out that misconceptions, errors, and even lies are also to be found on all levels and from all possible sources...

                "Archeology will also become a spiritual pursuit, and will involve training in the receiving of information from elementals and 'spirits', as well as journeying in trance and out-of-body states."

                Really? How about chemistry, biology, and physics? If they were admitting this type of information, wouldn't they stop being science?

                "It seems to me to be very important not to judge cultures by the available information..."

                Hmmm. Shall we then consider them on the basis of *unavailable* information? I think that's called "imagination" and "fantasy".

                "... and not to draw many conclusions that are not confirmed with the people in the traditions now."

                I'm curious as to how you define "the people in the traditions". Do you mean people who have practiced these traditions in a "pure" form from ancient times to the present (if this were even possible)? Or do you mean anyone who feels inspired to be "in the tradition"?

                Should we avoid drawing many conclusions about evangelical Christianity that are not "confirmed" with their practicioners? It's been my experience that they, too, are "mostly open to be consulted."
                • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                  Mon, August 21, 2006 - 6:09 PM

                  That post is so filled with misconceptions and disinformation that it's hard to know where to begin taking it seriously!

                  The word "Maya" is known in India for millennia, and the Naga Maya are well known there. So it truly is amazing to hear a non-Maya speculate about the Mayan language, and slag off Hunbatz Men who is an initiated Yucatan Maya Priest raised in the tradition by his uncle and others. In my experience he is a humble man who does not claim to be perfect, and he has helped his people with the money that he makes from his work. What is particularly disrespectful to the Maya is to see yet another Gringo who thinks he knows better about their language than they do - it's the same old cultural imperialism, all over again!

                  As for the meaning of mantras, they have been in use for thousands of years and have been widely studied (but probably not at Yale!). There is plenty of evidence to show quite clearly that mantric language united many cultures, and one such mantra is "ma". It was for that reason that I mentioned it specifically. “Ra” is another such common mantra with well understood meanings. As I said "Ku-ma-ra" is a name given to certain concepts and to teachers of those concepts and has been for thousands of years. “Ma” is a most certainly a mantra for the feminine aspect and the “Mother”, and anyone who does not know about it does not know about mantric language and perhaps should go and learn about it.
                  The Mayan language IS mantric and IS reversible and has been clearly demonstrated to be so. That Gringo scholars aren't aware of this fact does not affect its truth or significance
                  The pure arrogance of specialist-intellectuals who pontificate about other cultures as if they were just another 'subject' is a wonder to behold! It just goes to prove what I have said before, that you can only get so much from books and scholars, and then you actually have to be with the people you are talking about. Otherwise it is just speculation and intellectual b.s!

                  And all that blah blah about Christian crosses and swastikas. You really imagine I don’t know about those things and need you to tell me?

                  As for the matter of metal tools, there have been many speculations about the Olmec not having metal (iron/steel/alloy) tools and teams of silly archeologists have sought to prove where they got their stones from (they came to the wrong conclusions about the location inspite of locals trying to show them), and then tried to prove that the Olmec used harder rocks to carve their basalt statues. These teams failed to carve like the Olmec and were left puzzled. No stones were ever carved with copper, bronze, silver or gold. There was one such ‘investigative’ group of archaeologists in Veracruz state in 2000. I wonder how much money was wasted achieving so little? (and they made a daft documentary about it!)

                  Sadly, being at Yale and Harvard does not make you an expert on the Maya.
                  If you knew Hunbatz you would not be so rude about him. On the contrary you would show some respect for a Mayan man raised in the ‘tradition’, and who is able to do many things that you, with all your books and knowledge, cannot do.
                  But of course to Yale and Harvard types (wasn’t that where various Bush family and other US elite members go/went?), there is nothing more than the physical realm (except in secret rituals at Bohemian Grove etc – but that’s all New Age ‘conspiracy theory’!).
                  No doubt you have spent some time in Mexico examining pyramids and walking around pretending to know what it was all about. I very much doubt that you meditated, dreamed, astrally journeyed, did ceremony with Mayan people, made offerings to the Aluxes, spent time ‘feeling’ the energy of stones and altars, because if you had you would be talking about different things and be a far less cynical!

                  You may actually be ‘right’ about the excavations in Bosnia, and then again possibly not. There are pyramids around the world and it’s nothing new to know about various ‘solar temples’ and ‘platforms’, so why not in Eastern Europe?

                  It appears to me as arrogance to belittle the research of Hancock and Bauval. I have met both men and read/seen much of their material. Bauval showed where the chamber under the Sphinx is with astronomical calculation and was proven correct in subsequent excavations.
                  But then perhaps you still think that the Giza pyramids were just tombs, that the various alignments are coincidences and the Earth Grids are all fantasy?
                  Virginia Steen Macintyre, Michael Cramer and others, have plenty of highly qualified experience, yet have taken it upon themselves to expose the debunking of masses of independent archaeology and finds which pull-the-rug-from-under the dogmas of the establishment. But then you probably dislike such renegades and will dismiss their evidence and experience as nothing!

                  Perhaps you consider the Dogon as ‘lucky’ with their great accuracy about Sirius B? All just coincidences eh? Of course it isn’t physically possible for people thousands of years ago to know about invisble astral bodies, so it’s probably another New Age plot!
                  And all that talk of astral journeying, across the universe and beyond, must be very frustrating for you! All those people talking about nature spirits, elementals, guides, Star Elders, ceremonies, and even initiations! Is it all New Age ‘clap-trap’, or could it be that those terms have been in use by many cultures for many thousands of years, long before Yale or Harvard were even thought of?

                  So are yours the ramblings of a debunker, whose job it is to turn people off the Maya and their wisdom? Why else present the limited information that you have, somehow as the sum of knowledge about the Maya?
                  Do you also think that the Hopi are just another bunch of ‘Injuns’? All that stuff about prophecy, cycles of human existence and destruction, ceremonies and rituals must be more New Age nonsense to you. But then you probably know scholars who ‘know all about’ the ‘Injuns’ and what they really are and believe!

                  The five-sided ‘hills’ on the surface of Mars must be another frustrating New Age bit of nonsense for you. Imagine anyone thinking that we could have been seeded here by other far more advanced races, who could travel across the Galaxy in moments! And all that stuff by US military personnel in the Disclosure Project, about the US govt having ET technology for decades, and dliberately keeping it hidden from their population! They must all be wrong, because none of it was known at Harvard! And the nice respectable folk at MIT don’t mention it either! More New Age nonsense!
                  And then there’s the inconvenient stories from native peoples around the world about ‘brothers and sisters from the stars’ and Star Elders teaching the people certain knowledge, and some people being ‘taken’ by the star people.
                  When a large group of people saw a flying disc craft above Uxmal during the 1995 ceremonies for the End of the 9 Hell Cycles, many had no doubt about the importance of what we were doing. But then you will probably dismiss it all, because you know so much better than anyone else!

                  And then all that New Age Mayan nonsense about Atlantiha! No mention that the Maya knew the name for the ‘Atlantic’ long before any of the stinky white folks came round. Did Plato drop by and tell them about it perhaps?

                  Of course the ‘Scholars’ who’ve wandered around the archaeological zone of Nah Chan know all about the great city. The pointy hills behind the ‘Temple of Inscriptions’ are just that – pointy hills, not larger pyramids!. And the tunnels found in ’99 which led to Zedillio flying down and the military being called in to guard the area (I was there), are nothing much at all! Probably nothing to do with the tunnels at Quirigua, or discovered at dozens of other sites around the world. And of course the tunnels full of cinnabar at Quirigua which show 2 previous layers of culture before the surface visible one, are nothing important!
                  Actually my good friend Alberto Ruz Buenfil, the son of the man who excavated the Tomb of Pacal, spent years of his youth running around the site. He is a very spiritual man of ceremony and a friend of Hunbatz Men.

                  It was Hunbatz who said to me that eventually people will find that the Maya cultures are far older than the establishment want everyone to believe. He is slowly but surely being proved right!

                  You may be right about sacrifice and “gift”. Actually that’s a nice way to put it!
                  However the images in the museum in Merida and elsewhere, which were used to prove that the Maya were doing sacrifices (images of a person lying on an altar with a cut in the chest and a large tree behind with an eagle and serpent) are well known in Renaissance art, and discussed by Jung in his work on symbolism.
                  Actually, the very few pieces of evidence for sacrifice amount to almost nothing when examined properly.
                  The bones found at Chichen Itza cenote are utterly worthless ‘proof’ and should be ignored. The decapitations prove nothing. In wars people are killed in various ways, including executed, and the USA knows all about that! The bodies in some pyramid also do not prove ritual sacrifice, unless you are suggesting that the great Egyptians were also sacrificing, and the wives of lords who threw themselves on funeral pyres in various cultures, are also a sign of ‘sacrifice’.
                  There are lots of symbols of self-sacrifice, ‘giving’, devotion, ascension, enlightenment, and many can be interpreted as examples of ‘sacrifice’.
                  It is entirely up to the speculators to ‘prove’ their assertions and not for the Maya to ‘prove’ anything. The crap that some people say about “well you know, we all know that the Maya did it, so that’s enough!” and “anyway look at the Aztecs and what they did!”, as if there is any evidence that the Maya believed the same as the Aztec. It’s like suggesting that ‘all Germans are Nazis’, and ‘all Muslims are terrorists’! In other words b.s!
                  Isn’t it enough to know that the two cultures had different languages, existed at different times and in different places, virtually never fought each other, had many different perspectives about life, after-life, dieties, symbolism, and much more.
                  And what is particularly pathetic is some people’s use of the references to ‘Mayan sacrifice’ to belittle and dismiss such a great and accomplished people, especially by peoples from incredibly violent cultures with extremely gory pasts that make the Aztec era look like a picnic! Even worse is the judgement of the Maya from people who are literally sanctioning (through taxes, votes and active support) the ‘sacrifice’ of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in recent times, on the ‘altar of democracy’. What is the use of depleted uranium in bombs and shells, if it isn’t the prolonged ‘sacrifice’ of a whole nation?

                  Perhaps this post will provoke ‘hell-fire and damnation’, and be hacked to bits on the ‘altar of intellectualism’?
                  Never mind – it’s only the ramblings of a New Age Mayan freak!

                  In Lak’ech a Lak’en
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Travels to Pedantis

                    Mon, August 21, 2006 - 8:17 PM
                    Just because the word "maya" has been known in India for millennia doesn't mean that it ever had anything to do with the Maya of Mexico or Central America. To my knowledge, the word "Maya" has yet to be identified in any of the hundreds of deciphered hieroglyphic inscriptions. Hmmm.

                    To say that Hunbatz Men has special knowledge of the ancient Maya because he is a Yucatec Maya is a bit like saying I have special knowledge of ancient Nordic religion because my grandmother's family was from Sweden. Human knowledge is learned, not genetically inherited. Whether Hunbatz Men learned what he knows from his uncle or others, the fact remains that the Spanish have been in the Yucatan for almost 500 years and that the practice of traditional Maya religion has taken one hell of a beating from Catholic missionaries over the past several centuries. Religions change over time in response to both internal and external change, if you hadn't noticed.

                    By the way, if you're going to be slinging mud at gringos, I hope you'll also heave a few chunks at Carl Johan Calleman and the other New Age gurus who are seeking their fame and fortune by selling "indigenous" knowledge. Are you familiar with this document?

                    puffin.creighton.edu/lakota/war.html

                    "Sadly, being at Yale and Harvard does not make you an expert on the Maya."

                    Yes, you're right about that. There are plenty of people who went to both schools who don't know squat about the Maya. However, what *does* make me something of an expert is the fact that I've been reading and studying about the Maya since the mid-1970s. I took courses from archaeologists Michael Coe and Gordon Willey (my doctoral advisor), researching and writing long and detailed papers on the ancient Maya. I've traveled extensively in Mexico and Central America and have been teaching courses about ancient Mesoamerica and the Maya on a regular basis since 1988. Since 1980, I've regularly attended symposia about current research on the Maya at meetings of the American Anthropological Association, the Society for American Archaeology, and special conferences at Dumbarton Oaks, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Pennsylvania. This past December, I was invited to present a paper at the European Maya Conference at the University of Leiden. One of my former students is widely considered to be a world authority on the origins of Maya writing (he spent the summer teaching a workshop on Yucatec). Another is the one who discovered the spectacular murals at San Bartolo, Guatemala (see www.sanbartolo.org ). I've also led tours of Maya sites in the Yucatan and Chiapas. Despite all of that, I consider myself to be only a provisional "expert" on the Maya. (My main focus is on cultures farther south.)

                    "If you knew Hunbatz you would not be so rude about him. On the contrary you would show some respect for a Mayan man raised in the ‘tradition’, and who is able to do many things that you, with all your books and knowledge, cannot do."

                    Maybe you're right about that. However, if you knew me better, maybe you would not be so rude to me. I am *also* a man raised in MY own tradition. My many years of experience and hard work are *also* deserving of respect. There are many things that I am able to do that someone like Hunbatz Men cannot do. Why are YOU addressing ME in such a disrespectful fashion? My people were also at one time subjected to genocide, slavery, deculturation, exploitation, and destruction of their traditions. Am I somehow a lesser person just because my ancestors were displaced from their native lands while Hunbatz Men's were not? Is my knowledge somehow inferior because it comes from written rather than oral sources?

                    It's a bit ironic that someone like yourself is respectful of some elders but not others. You seem very sure of yourself without having done much of your own study. Someday, you will learn just how foolish that can be.
                    • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                      Tue, August 22, 2006 - 3:57 AM
                      Creator is the only "expert" .. all but direct experience is hearsay.
                      • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                        Tue, August 22, 2006 - 7:28 AM
                        "all but direct experience is hearsay"

                        Perhaps, but some hearsay is better than others. In an ideal world, everyone would personally experience, consider, and evaluate everything. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do that. You have to develop methods for evaluating the quality of the experiences of others so that you can learn from them. Discerning bullshit from wisdom is one of the most valuable skills you can acquire.

                        You can't trust direct experience. That's easily demonstrated by optical illusions:

                        www.michaelbach.de/ot/index.html

                        Ever see magic tricks you didn't understand? Beware of smoke and mirrors and cons.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Travels to Pedantis

                    Mon, August 21, 2006 - 10:07 PM
                    "Actually, the very few pieces of evidence for sacrifice amount to almost nothing when examined properly."

                    So, you think the following kinds of evidence can be ignored?

                    Mass Graves Reveal Massacre of Maya Royalty
                    news.nationalgeographic.com/news....html

                    Royal Massacre Signals the Beginning of the End of the Maya Empire
                    www.vanderbilt.edu/explorat...acre.html

                    Interviews: Uncovering a Mayan Massacre
                    www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php

                    I'm curious. What's your interpretation of this scene in a mural from Room 2, Structure 1 at Bonampak, Chiapas?

                    redescolar.ilce.edu.mx/redesc...06a.jpg
                    • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                      Mon, August 21, 2006 - 10:10 PM
                      I realize this isn't a Maya site, but do you also consider the evidence for sacrifice at the ancient city of Teotihuacan to be "almost nothing when examined properly"? What's *your* interpretation of the graves in the Feathered Serpent Pyramid?

                      archaeology.asu.edu/teo/fsp/.../gvg1.htm
                      • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                        Tue, August 22, 2006 - 8:06 AM
                        There you go!
                        What do the Teotihuacan activities have to do with the Maya? Were the Maya called in for the job, because of their expertise?

                        And as for so called "massacres", was Wounded Knee a 'sacrificial act' by the US Cavalry? Were atrocities in all wars acts of 'sacrifice'? Is the murder going on in Iraq and Lebanon all 'sacrifice'? Do Israeli soldiers 'sacrifice' Palestinians each day? And the massive amount of abduction of children each year in Western cultures, with tens of thousands never seen again? Are they all 'ritual sacrifice'? Is a US airforce bomber a 'tool of sacrifice'? Statistically thousands of people die every year as a direct result of the treatment they receive in hospital. Is that doctors performing 'sacrifice'?
                        The Bonampak murals were made during the time of civil wars when people were killed and executed in all kinds of ways. So what? If some soldiers run around killing and destroying and get then caught, chances are they will get little mercy!
                        The Geneva Convention is for those who murder and destroy without honour, but pretend that they don't, and want their own people treated better. It's proved to be only a pretext for selected war crimes trials and executions after the event, while deliberately ignoring the war crimes of many others (like G W Bush, Tony Blair and their friends' genocide of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the obvious abuse of human rights at Guantanamo). The same double standards are applied to the judgement of ancient cultures like the Maya.

                        You are not a teacher or guide for me and I have never heard of you anywhere but here. I had absolutely no idea that you were qualified in the field at all. When it comes to being rude about one another, really it was 'unprofessional' of you to say things about other authors and leaders in their fields when you want to be recognised yourself. The best that different authors and specialists should do is 'agree to differ' if they hold such different opinions.

                        Hunbatz Men is one of my teachers and I have great respect for the enormous amount of work he has done. He is a Maya and highly initiated and very experienced. He certainly knows about places that you have never seen or heard of. There are at least hundreds if not thousands of other folk who feel similar respect for him. If you took the time to meet him and know him, see the work that he does, and the work of the mystery school project and community, I am sure you would not be rude about him.

                        And as I said there are plenty of 'experts' on the Maya, and most know what they know from other peoples' books and courses, and by walking around Mayan sites. There are lots of 'experts' who have never sat in a temescal, never had a mushroom experience, never lived in a palapa, never been part of any special ceremonies with the Maya, never met any nature spirits, never been initiated, never been part of a Fire Ceremony, and never even burned copal. So how on Earth can they know about the Maya, if they do not take part with Mayan people in what are normal activities in any traditonal Mayan year?
                        What about the living traditions of Mayan herbalism, acupuncture, energy healing and curanderismo? What about the use of the many calendars and the profundity of the knowledge of great cycles, prophecies and the oral tradition?
                        When people take from the Mayan culture and give nothing back, not even show respect for living Mayan traditions, I call it 'cultural imperialism' (other people might call it something else).

                        I do believe that all will come to know what I am talking about eventually.

                        Thank you for your work to help inform people about Mayan culture and please do continue. All contributions do make a difference.
                        • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                          Wed, August 23, 2006 - 10:11 AM
                          "What do the Teotihuacan activities have to do with the Maya?"

                          Excellent question. There is a growing body of scholarship to indicate that Teotihuacan played a central role in the founding of royal lineages at the major sites of Tikal, Copán, Yaxchilán, and even Palenque. This is something that archaeologists saw the first hints of in the 1930s and have been documenting even more thorougly since the 1960s, with Clemecy Coggin's work on the artwork in royal burial assemblages at Tikal, and it increased in 1990 with the identification by Linda Schele and David Freidel of Teotihuacan's role in conflicts between Tikal and Uaxactán.

                          There is a recent (2004) collection of articles edited by Geoff Braswell called "The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction"
                          www.amazon.com/gp/product/0292705875

                          I think understanding Teotihuacan is *essential* to interpreting the ancient Maya. Not only was it profoundly influential during the Early Classic period (ca. AD 200-600), but also in later periods. The supposed "Toltec" influence on Chichén Itzá may have actually had its origins in Teotihuacan, where the Feathered Serpent Pyramid may have been the basis for the form of the Casillo at Chichén.

                          Teotihuacan was considered to be a sacred place of origin and is likely to have played a central role in the origin myths of many Maya ruling lineages. It seems likely that major elements of the Maya belief and symbolism, especially the famous feathered serpent, had their origins at Teotihuacan. This ancient city was, for Mesoamerica, like the Garden of Eden, Jerusalem, Rome, and Mecca all rolled into one. There were Mayas living at Teotihuacan, which was also influenced by events in the Maya world. Considering Maya civilization without Teotihuacan is like considering European civilization without Rome.

                          It's too bad this major center has been largely ignored by many pop scholars who write about the Maya. That has not been true for academic archaeologists.

                          "There are lots of 'experts' who have never sat in a temescal, never had a mushroom experience, never lived in a palapa, never been part of any special ceremonies with the Maya, never met any nature spirits, never been initiated, never been part of a Fire Ceremony, and never even burned copal. So how on Earth can they know about the Maya, if they do not take part with Mayan people in what are normal activities in any traditonal Mayan year?"

                          There are also a lot of experts who *have* done all these things. If this is truly how you think, then I hope that you (and others) will refrain from passing judgement on evangelical Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and others until you have been a part of their ceremonies and prayed with them. How on earth can you know about these people if you do not take part in their normal activities by attending services in churches and mosques? You refer to "initiation". Do you think that people should refrain from commenting on the activities of Christians unless they've been baptized?

                          "When people take from the Mayan culture and give nothing back, not even show respect for living Mayan traditions, I call it 'cultural imperialism' (other people might call it something else)."

                          I completely agree. Just so that I know you're not setting up a "straw man" argument, could you please identify some of the specific people who you think are taking and giving nothing back? If you can't name them, would you please refrain from contributing to negative stereotypes that are based on ignorance? It's just as bad to perpetuate lies about archaeologists as it is to perpetuate them about Mayas. Do you have *any* idea how difficult it is to get into a graduate program on Maya archaeology or anthropology, much less complete a Ph.D. and pursue a career as a specialist in that field? Don't you realize that success requires many, many years of hardship, expense, intense study, fieldwork, writing, etc.? Do you really think that the people who do this have no respect for the cultures or people they are studying? Or that they are doing this only for benefits to themselves and not from a desire to discover and share new knowledge about these amazing cultures? There are a lot of different ways for intelligent, hardworking people to find financial success in this world. Why do you think people choose careers in academia?

                          "Thank you for your work to help inform people about Mayan culture and please do continue. All contributions do make a difference."

                          You're welcome.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Travels to Pedantis

                    Tue, August 22, 2006 - 7:36 AM
                    Speaking of Hunbatz Men, there's a scathing review of his book by "a neurologist who studies brain function" on the Amazon sales page:

                    www.amazon.com/gp/product/0939680637
                    • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                      Tue, August 22, 2006 - 8:32 AM
                      "Romans were crucifying people on T-shaped crosses when the Mayans were still trying to figure out how to build mud huts"

                      This load of absolute shite is exactly that! What a dumb idiot this reviewer is! Got his dates completely wrong and hasn't got a clue!
                      To take this nonsense as any kind of authority is seriously challenged in the mental department!

                      The Maya had already bred maize and built ceremonial cities long before the Romans were anything but warring groups of Greek and Egyptian culture robbers.

                      The Maya are much older than the archaeological posse want folk to think. Quirigua shows (as does Chichen Itza) 2 layers of previous constructions under the main surface ones.
                      Mexico has examples of far older cultures which have been proven at various sites. The findings of Virginia Steen Macintyre in the Zona Volcanica in Puebla state, back in the '60s, using carbon, uranium and zircon dating showed a date of at least 120,000 years old on a leaf point embedded in a tigers jaw (partially fossilized). She lost her job and funding and was refused work in dating systems from then on. Her assistant said 20,000 years and got promotion. Talk about corruption!
                      The original dating of the exacavators of the pavement around the temple at Cuicuilco is far older than the present consensus allows, and showed (via carbon dating) layers of volcanic ash and human activity going back many thousands of years, perhaps as much as 17,000 years. The work has been dismissed and the archaeological debunking conspiracy has gone on retaining the 'Injuns came over the land bridge from Alaska' theory. It is another example of 'experts' who either can't bear to be found out to have been wrong, or are deliberately working to debunk and hide the truth from the public (or even both!).

                      Charles Hapgood showed the maps of the Turks and others, which identified even the Antarctic thousands of years before it was mapped with sonar. Why isn't this FACT written about extensively?

                      The debunking crew really are the stupidest bunch of assholes out there! They should get-a-life and get a new job!
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: Travels to Pedantis

                        Wed, August 23, 2006 - 4:13 AM
                        Agreeing with you Psi.... there is so much ignorance out there. SO much ego driven haughtiness just to prove oneself write. Yes, There are alot of debinkers out there - and here in this Tribe... that is the way in this life though eh? Lets pray for the greatest good to enlighten those who do not yet see.

                        Om to love - to Truth.

                        IN all the informtaion that is being passed around, and ALL the fabulous books filled with alot of 'words' - the truest resonation comes when the Author is 'living' his word - when in his/her simplicity he/she invokes great change enlightening us to become aware of something we had no rememberance of before that benifits all of humanity to live more in harmony.

                        It is the messengers of peace who give, act and inspire change that ingnite the waves of transformtaion. Let's open our eyes to who is doing the greatest good for humanity - who is working by their very lifestyle to live in harmony with the eco-system and humanity. Words are just words - in Truth, you will know those who are true and who "see" by their fruits.

                        Fancy words from a person does not impress me as much as their action. The greatest movements are those which point the way to harmony and peace - dedicated to living the oaths made in the silence of our revelations. I honor those who do not "sell out" and who are radical enough to defy the obvious corruption instilled upon this world by the bankers, false priests drunken by th ewine of Babylon.

                        Ye will know the children of God (love) by their fruits.

                        Yea, thank you Jose Arguelles for opening the eyes of the world to the powerful wisdom and advanced culture of the Ancient Maya - hail to Pacal Votan for having the insight to dedicate the finding of his tomb thru his genii. Blessings and grace to Mother Theresa, John Lennon, Buddah, Jesus, Isis, Sekhemet, Horus and ALL the named & unamed beings of peace who truly make, and have made a difference toward peace and love: in God.

                        The time will come when Babylon WILL fall and Nature will restore balance - according to the Law of Time - the Law of Love.

                        Om... selah



                        • Unsu...
                           

                          *

                          Wed, August 23, 2006 - 4:19 AM
                          To the debunkers of Truth:

                          We wish you love and light..... truly we do. In this creation there is polarity, and without one or the other, we would not be. That is the pradox of life.... but know that those of who love will never stop loving or be bought/ brought to surrender to "siding" with a system that is non-harmonic to the whole (life - nature) - in the eternal psi of our nature harmony always, WILL always prevail - there is an order in this seeming chaos. Love is the way....

                          Love is the way....
                      • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                        Wed, August 23, 2006 - 10:25 AM
                        "The Maya had already bred maize and built ceremonial cities long before the Romans were anything but warring groups of Greek and Egyptian culture robbers."

                        According to the Wikipedia (for what it's worth), Rome was founded in the 9th century BC:

                        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome

                        What Maya "ceremonial city" do you have in mind when you say that these were built "long before the Romans..."? Cuicuilco, in the Valley of Mexico, is not a Maya site.

                        "The original dating of the exacavators of the pavement around the temple at Cuicuilco is far older than the present consensus allows, and showed (via carbon dating) layers of volcanic ash and human activity going back many thousands of years, perhaps as much as 17,000 years. The work has been dismissed and the archaeological debunking conspiracy has gone on retaining the 'Injuns came over the land bridge from Alaska' theory. It is another example of 'experts' who either can't bear to be found out to have been wrong, or are deliberately working to debunk and hide the truth from the public (or even both!). "

                        Do you realize how much you're beginning to sound like a 6-day Creationist arguing for the "truth" of the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood? Check out the anti-science rhetoric on the Creation Science Evangelism website:

                        drdino.com

                        "Charles Hapgood showed the maps of the Turks and others, which identified even the Antarctic thousands of years before it was mapped with sonar. Why isn't this FACT written about extensively? "

                        Ummm. Because it's wrong?

                        "The debunking crew really are the stupidest bunch of assholes out there! They should get-a-life and get a new job!"

                        Here's a bit of wisdom for you:

                        Rabbi Hillel was challenged once to teach all of the wisdom of Judaism while standing on one foot. His answer? "Don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you. That is all the Torah; the rest is commentary."
                      • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                        Wed, August 23, 2006 - 11:15 AM
                        It's telling to observe how the same people who relish debunking myths about WMDs, 9/11, entheogens, and global warming get their panties in such a twist when their own mythologies are put under a microscope.
                        • Unsu...
                           

                          Re: Travels to Pedantis

                          Wed, August 23, 2006 - 7:21 PM
                          Dear Hoopes,

                          Please do explain more about what you are refering to?

                          :-)
                          • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                            Wed, August 23, 2006 - 8:37 PM
                            "Please do explain more about what you are refering to?"

                            Well, I think it's fair to say that everyone on this planet probably has an operational definition of what is the "truth" about their origins, their past, their perception, their purpose, and their future. However, a huge number of these "truths" are mutually contradictory. This does not mean that they are wrong or invalid. Rather, it says more about the nature of "truth" and "reality".

                            Personally, I'm skeptical that there is such a thing as "truth" with a capital "T" (as you wrote it). I'm not quite as skeptical about the existence of an objective, material, empirically observable universe whose parts and their workings can be perceived and comprehended by all humans.

                            It's a useful exercise to imagine the following remark were aimed at people who have debunked claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that there were connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda, or that there was no foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, or that entheogen use leads to insanity, or that global warming isn't happening, etc., etc.

                            "The debunking crew really are the stupidest bunch of assholes out there! They should get-a-life and get a new job!"

                            Critical thinking is what protects all of us from those people who would take advantage of our desperation. It is not a good thing to be either too gullible or too close-minded, since stupidity ensues when you repeatedly identify significance where there is none or fail to recognize it when it's there. There is a thin line between chaos and order, and between creativity and insanity, but I strive to discern it and in so doing to become wiser.
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: Travels to Pedantis

                              Wed, August 23, 2006 - 8:55 PM
                              RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              ANDREW INVERGOWRIE
                              conduct enigmatic points
                              of his that him after


                              Certainly
                              Certainly
                              Certainly
                              Certainly
                              Certainly
                              Certainly

                              BOBB! RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Ribble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bobobble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bobobble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bobobble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bobobble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bobobble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bobobble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bobobble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Babababble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bobobble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Babababble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Babababble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Babababble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Babababble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Babababble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Babababble RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Rib RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO



                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier

                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO
                              Bab RIBBLE BOBBLE PIMLICO

                              Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribible Riddle
                              Ribible Riddle
                              Ribible Riddle
                              Ribible Riddle
                              Ribible Riddle
                              Ribible Riddle
                              Ribible Riddle Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribibible Ribibible
                              Ribibible Ribibible
                              Ribibible Ribibible
                              Ribibible Ribibible
                              Ribibible Ribibible
                              Ribibible Ribibible Ribble Bobble Pimlico


                              Ribibibible Ribibible
                              Ribibibible Ribibible
                              Ribibibible Ribibible
                              Ribibibible Ribibible
                              Ribibibible Ribibible
                              Ribibibible Ribibible Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Bib Bib Bib Bib Bib Bib Bib Bib
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Bab Bab Bab Bab Bab Bab Bab Bab
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribib Ribib Ribib Ribib Ribib Ribib Ribib Ribib
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Bobab Bobab Bobab Bobab Bobab Bobab Bobab Bobab
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribibib Ribibib Ribibib Ribibib Ribibib Ribibib Ribibib Ribibib
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico

                              Bobobab
                              Bobobab
                              Bobobab
                              Bobobab
                              Bobobab
                              Bobobab
                              Bobobab
                              Bobobab Ribble Bobble Pimlico


                              Ribibibib
                              Ribibibib
                              Ribibibib
                              Ribibibib
                              Ribibibib
                              Ribibibib
                              Ribibibib
                              Ribibibib
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico


                              Bobobabab
                              Bobobabab
                              Bobobabab
                              Bobobabab
                              Bobobabab
                              Bobobabab
                              Bobobabab
                              Bobobabab Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Rib Rib Rib Rib Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble Ribble
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Babble Babble Babble Babble Babble Babble Babble Babble
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              PIMLICO Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Pipimlico Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Pipimlico Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Pipimlico Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Pipimlico Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Pipipimlico Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Pipipimlico Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Pipipimlico Ribble Bobble Pimlico

                              PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PIM
                              BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BAM
                              PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PIM
                              BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BAM Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              PIMM Ribble Bobble Pimlico

                              Andrew Invergowrie Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Ande v ar e double u Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              A Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              A en Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              A en de Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              A en de ar Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              en de ar e Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              de ar e double u Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              ar e double u Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              e double u Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              double u Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              A en de ar e double u Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              A en de ar e double u Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              ar e double u Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              ar e double u Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              rew Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              Andrew Ribble Bobble Pimlico

                              Invergrowrie Ribble Bobble Pimlico
                              I Ribble Bobble Pimlico

                              In
                              Inv
                              Inve
                              Inver
                              g
                              go
                              gow
                              Invergow
                              gowr
                              gowri
                              gowrie
                              Invergowrie



                              RI
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE
                              BIBBIBLEBIBBLE RIBBIBIBLE
                              BIBBIBIBIBLE RIBBIBIBLE
                              BIBBIBIBIBLE RIBBIBIBLE RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              BIBBIBIBIBLE RIBBIBIBLE
                              BIBBIBIBIBLE RIBBIBIBLE
                              RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBIBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBIBLE
                              RIBBIBLE
                              RIBBIBLE
                              RIBBIBLE
                              RIBBIBLE
                              RIBBIBLE
                              RIBBIBLE RIBBIBIBIBLE

                              RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBB RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBB RIBBIBIBIBLE RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBB
                              RIBB
                              RIBB
                              RIBB
                              RIBB
                              RIBB
                              RIBB
                              RIBB RIBBIBIBIBLE
                              RIBB RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBB

                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO pipimlico
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO pipimlico
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO
                              PIMLICO pipimlico

                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE
                              pipimlico
                              PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP
                              PIP PIP
                              RIBB PIP
                              RIBB PIP
                              RIBB PIP
                              RIBB PIP
                              RIBBIB PIP
                              RIBBIB PIP
                              RIBBIB PIP
                              RIBBIB PIP
                              RIBBIB PIP
                              RIBBIBIP PIP
                              RIBBIBIP PIP
                              RIBBIBIP PIP
                              RIBBIBIP PIP
                              RIBBIBIPIP PIP
                              RIBBIBIPIP PIP
                              RIBBIBIPIP PIP
                              RIBBIBIPIP PIP
                              RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP
                              RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP RIBBIP

                              Ovecru
                              Ovecru
                              Ovecru
                              Ovecru
                              Ovecru cru

                              Ovecru
                              Ovecru
                              Ovecru
                              Ovecru
                              Ovecru cru
                              cru
                              cru
                              cru
                              cru
                              ovecru cru
                              ovecru cru
                              ovecru cru
                              cru

                              RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB
                              RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB
                              RIBBIB
                              OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE

                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE

                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE
                              RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE RIBBLE

                              RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB
                              RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB
                              RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB RIBBIB

                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier



                              Bobble
                              Bobobble
                              Bobble
                              Bababble
                              Babble
                              Bubabble
                              Bubble
                              Bububble
                              Bubabubble
                              Bubabble
                              Bubabble
                              Bubabble
                              Bubabble
                              Bubabble
                              Bubabble
                              Bubabble
                              Bab
                              Bab
                              Bab
                              Bab
                              Bab
                              Bab
                              Bab
                              Bab
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier
                              Good deal easier



                              Certainly
                              Certainly
                              Certainly
                              Certainly
                              Certainly
                              Certainly



                              - Kurt Schwitters, "Ribble Bobble Pimlico", 1946
                              • Re: Travels to Pedantis

                                Fri, August 25, 2006 - 9:46 AM
                                Thanks Ferrara!
                                Someone who believes what he wants to and ignores the rest, might get the point!

                                But then again, with all that reference to the established truths of the ruling elites and heirarchies, I will leave the orcs to their dinner and continue to take the ring to the fiery mountain.

                                In Lak'ech
            • Re: Hunab Ku

              Sun, August 20, 2006 - 8:27 PM
              Thanks, Geoff! I'll check it out myself. The reference to a "Mexican blanket" and the symbol's similarity to the geometric designs on the walls at Mitla may have a connection.

              It's been documented that, in the 17th century, the Spanish used weavers and weavings from Oaxaca (where Mitla is located) to help introduce sheep and wool technologies to the Southwestern U.S. Some of the designs on historic "Navajo" blankets can be traced to inspiration from southern Mexico.

              I'll bet Spinden never referred to this design as "Hunab Ku" and I still think the association between this design and the "one god" concept doesn't date any earlier than the 1980s. At any rate, it is almost certainly not an ancient Maya symbol, as is often asserted.
              • Re: Hunab Ku

                Wed, August 23, 2006 - 3:06 AM
                I've just heard from JMJ that the exect same image appeared in the Codex Magliabecchiano published in 1903, that has a commentary or intro by Zelia Nuttall.

                Geoff
                • Re: Hunab Ku

                  Fri, August 25, 2006 - 2:35 PM
                  Bingo! JMJ had previously said that it came from the Codex Nuttall (named for Zelia Nuttall), which is not correct.

                  I found it in a 1983 reprint of "The Book of the Life of the Ancient Mexicans, Containing an Account of Their Rites and Superstitions, an Anonymous Hispano-Mexican Manuscript Preserved at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence, Italy, Part I. - Introduction and Facsimile" published with an introduction, translation, and commentary by Zelia Nuttall in 1903 (University of California, Berkeley).

                  Nuttall writes (p. xvi), "There can be no doubt that the drawings in the Magliabecchi Manuscript were made by a Mexican, whose work is characterized by an exceptionally clear execution of outline and detail and a perfect familiarity with the convention of native art."

                  The fact that Antonio de Herrera, Royal Historian and Chronicler to Charles V, used images from this MS. in his "Descripción de las Indias Occidentales", published in 1601, indicates that it dates to sometime earlier than this (but how much earlier is not known). However, Nuttall writes (p. xvii), "After many years of painstaking research, it is disappointing to have to record that up to the present I have not succeeded in obtaining conclusive evidence establishing the authorship and date of the Magliabecchi Manuscript."

                  A brief text at the beginning of the MS. states that the images on leaves 3 - 8 are "mantas" (rectangles of woven cloth) that were used in festivals.

                  Nuttall writes (p. xviii), "Its first part, consisting of a series of representations of the symbolical designs used by the Mexicans on their ceremonial mantles, is unique and of special interest. As a supplement to my commentary on these designs, I have published in Part II the unedited lists of the native names of similar designs conained in the Sahagun Manscripts of Madrid and Florence."

                  I haven't looked these up yet. It's worthwhile to note that the following pages of the MS. provide a detailed record of the twenty day signs in the central Mexican calendar, along with descriptions of festivals and both gods and goddesses associated with the drinking of pulque (a beer made from cactus juice). There are also illustrations of "the most remarkable native representation of human sacrifice that we possess", along with images of funerals, "ritualistic cannibalism", sweat baths (temazcalli), fortune telling, drinking scenes, and blood offerings.

                  It should be noted that neither the Codex Magliabecchano nor the Florentine Codex (Sahagún) are Maya. Both are central Mexican or "Aztec". The graphic image of human sacrifice on p. 70 of the MS. (which I've posted for Psi to consider) is a depiction of a ritual that has been described for the Aztecs but remains undocumented for the ancient Maya.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Hunab Ku

                    Fri, August 25, 2006 - 3:11 PM
                    The second volume of the 1983 facsimile of Nuttall's 1903 facsimile is a detailed discussion and commentary on the codex. Here's the complete citation:

                    Boone, Elizabeth Hill (1983) The Codex Magliabecchiano and the Lost Prototype of the Magliabechiano Group. Berkeley: University of California Press.

                    She writes (p. 31), "The Magliabechiano Group consists primarily of the Codex Magliabechiano, six other manuscripts, and a set of printed title-page decorations, all produced after the conquest of the New World and having their origins in Central Mexico." Her scholarship focuses on reproducing a "lost prototype" from which these texts derived, but her discussion is difficult to summarize here.

                    Boone discusses the "mantas" or ritual cloaks in detail on pp. 168-174. The cloak that inspired the supposed "Hunab Ku" design is identified as 5 verso #22. The annotation translates as "Mantle of spider water", but Boone notes "The scribe misread teçacatl (lip plug) as tocalatl, an approximation of 'spider water'". It therefore seems there was non-indigenous confusion over the meaning of this symbol even when it was painted over 400 years ago! The symbol is associated with the festival of lip plugs (ornaments worn in a large piercing in the middle of the lower lip).

                    Needless to say, there is no mention in the Codex Magliabechano--which in part is a discourse on the many gods and goddesses of the Aztecs--of "Hunab Ku" (Yucatec Mayan for "one god").
                    • Re: Hunab Ku

                      Fri, August 25, 2006 - 4:28 PM
                      Speaking of Aztec violence, here's news of a pertinent discovery:

                      www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/sc...ut/index.html

                      "Wednesday, August 23, 2006; Posted: 10:45 p.m. EDT (02:45 GMT)
                      CALPULALPAN, Mexico (Reuters) -- Skeletons found at an unearthed site in Mexico show Aztecs captured, ritually sacrificed and partially ate several hundred people traveling with invading Spanish forces in 1520. Skulls and bones from the Tecuaque archeological site near Mexico City show about 550 victims had their hearts ripped out by Aztec priests in ritual offerings, and were dismembered or had their bones boiled or scraped clean, experts say."
                      • Date Thu, October 12, 2006 - 8:22 PM
                        Subject Re: Psi has commented on your photo: "the most remarkable native representation of human sacrifice that we possess"
                        Message Hey Psi,

                        I'm not sure what your point is about debunkers. Yes, of course this is Aztec. No one is claiming anything different. Please note that it comes from exactly the same document--The Codex Magliabechiano--as the emblem that you use for your avatar, which is not Maya at all (as commonly asserted), but is also associated with the Aztecs, an oppressive, totalitarian, colonial state.

                        This is the first comment I've seen on the evidence I presented for my conclusions in the "Hunab Ku" thread.

                        2012.tribe.net/thread/fb0...d167201e98e

                        John


                        Psi wrote:
                        > Another example of attempts to distort the
                        > truth. This is specifically Aztec and not of any
                        > other Mexican cultural group! Such images are
                        > used by debunkers to portray Mexican cultures as
                        > bloodthirsty savages. We all know that the
                        > fascistic Aztec were sacrificing tens of
                        > thousands a year, and were hated for it. So did
                        > other colonial powers around the world,
                        > including the USA today!
                        >
                        > 2012.tribe.net/photos/bda...-2600-4072-
                        • At last we have the real reason for the original topic!

                          The assertion that such a symbol is some kind of fascistic symbol of oppression is pure nonsense. The symbol contains many profound elements, which anyone who knows anything about symbolism can see immediately. But apparently 'wiki' can't provide all the answers to some aspiring anthropologists! If it were a well-used symbol of the Aztec rule then we would see it easily in many places - we do not!
                          And the original posting of the photo is accompanied by the comment about "Mexicans" as if all the Mexica, Maya and other cultures were all involved in the same practices. That is a downright lie!

                          The idea that an Italian Codex written in the 16th Century is an authority on Mexican culture is also quite amazing. After so many thousands of texts were destroyed in the period of Spanish genocide and destruction, how can anyone be sure about what is or isn't.
                          As the wise Elders of many cultures have experienced repeatedly, the imperialism continues long after conquest and even after independence. It is in the form of archaeologists and anthropologists with their robbery of artifacts, 'dating' of peoples, claims and counter-claims, etc.
                          This endless preoccupation with what some people did hundreds of years ago is the same as going on at young Germans about the Nazis. Sadly the abuse of Native Americans continues today, after hundreds of years of genocide and imperialism, and as is so often the case, the abusers have written much of the history of the abused!
                          The debunkers in archaeology have the job of making the abused cultures seem less than they were, present false data and 'evidence' from 'experts' to support their claims, and of disputing the dating and information of anyone who goes against the 'consensus' view.

                          Why not go an speak to people of Aztec descent, working in the various traditions of dancing, ceremony, shamanism, art, etc? There are many Kalpullis with active groups and living traditions. The Chinampa system of the Aztec is one of the finest examples of sustainable agriculture and is used in Permaculture courses today.
                          Various comments about the Toltec-based rule of the Aztec culture have been made regarding the ending of the process of sacrifice. One comment is that the Aztec people were grateful that no more people had to be sacrificed because one person (Jesus) had given his life for everyone else. It seems that not all Aztec people actually wanted the sacrificing.
                          Aztec shamen were astrally projecting in battle and were practising many kinds of powerful healing arts, initiations and ceremonies, working with elementals and spirits, and creating works of great art and expression. The motivation for so much creativity and expression was certainly not only coercion.

                          I am proud to use a symbol which is using concepts which are universal and not solely Aztec, Maya or of any one group. I know that it is NOT a symbol of "an oppressive, totalitarian, colonial state." but about much more profound truth.

                          In Lak'ech



                          • "And the original posting of the photo is accompanied by the comment about 'Mexicans' as if all the Mexica, Maya and other cultures were all involved in the same practices. That is a downright lie!"

                            Regardless of what you think, "as if" doesn't make anything so, nor does it make me a liar.

                            The term "Mexican" has been used frequently in the scholarly literature on indigenous Mexico and Central America to refer to Precolumbian populations of the Valley of Mexico, a region that in ancient times was centered on Lake Texcoco and framed by volcanic highlands. It is a reference to ancient peoples of the Valley of Mexico, not the modern Mexican state. If you are interpreting this term as if it was intended to be applied more broadly, it is you who are mistaken.

                            The state of Mexico was named for the ancient Mexica, the principal ethnic group that was part of the political "Triple Alliance" that has come to be known as the "Aztecs". There is absolutely *nothing* in the original codex or the subsequent publication about it to indicate that it refers to Mayas or any other ethnic group that did not live in the Valley of Mexico.

                            Just because you are confused about the use of terms in the scholarly literature does not mean that they can be interpreted as slurs. If you investigate the codex in question, you will learn that it was written and illustrated by indigenous authors.

                            I don't think it is ethical practice to post private PM communications in a public forum. I especially resent your posting this PM as support for the claim that I am a liar. If you do this again, I will make a formal complaint about you to the Tribe.net managers. If you persist, I will appeal to other members of this tribe to complain as well.
                            • I'm not sure exactly what is going on here, since the comments that were reposted from a private conversation refer to things that are not part of this public thread. But I have to agree with Hoopes that it is a serious breach of ettiquette to repost PM messages without getting permission from the other person involved in the dialogue.
                        • Unsu...
                           
                          private emails being posted in a public forum... rather subversive.

                          what's the point to this post anyways? this sounds more personal than anything.
                          • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                            Fri, October 13, 2006 - 6:01 PM
                            The whole point of this thread seems to be to belittle the use of the mentioned symbol and to make anyone who uses it seem foolish and mistaken. I objected to this and have made my point.
                            I also objected to the unwelcome slurs against Mexicans by using generalisations, and over and over by a gringo foreigner. And always quoting 'wiki' or whatever as if they are the authorities on Mexican culture and past.
                            I am not the only person who has noted patronising comments, directed at other tribe members and in different threads.

                            I won't be posting anymore personal messages, but I will point out b.s when I see it!

                            As for complaints, I heard a few, but then again, too few to mention....
                            Do be do be do

                            In Lak'ech
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                              Fri, October 13, 2006 - 6:35 PM
                              p.s. there are no territory borders in cyberspace.
                              • Unsu...
                                 

                                Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                Fri, October 13, 2006 - 8:13 PM
                                Hoopes, the Nazi's took a very powerful Navaho symbol (swastica) and turned it into a state of dark affairs.... does this mean that the symbol itself is wrong? No. Of course not. I think you know this.

                                The Hunab Ku is a symbol that is simply an artistic beautiful sketch reminding us of the interconnected force of the Galaxy - swilring in beautiful fashion. Its sound is "heya" and is very Universal..... used by many cultures - sung out in many tones and chants especially the Maya.

                                It's ok Hoopes.... there comes a time when we have to stop trying to "prove" ourselves and humble to the quiet force in our self enough to "hear" each and every soul with respect. You can hurt your body too much (high blood pressure, digestion problems, heart murmers, etc) if you are always seeking to slam another into the ground because you do not fully understand anothers view - particularily mysticism. Love. Just simply love. Love lifts us up where we belong.

                                The more we are open, the more we see. There is so much to this life. The Universe is teeming with life. We are all still at the kindergarten range as far as evolution goes.... it's ok - we may think we are solid but we are not - we are ether and light waves - the force of this is greater than you or I know.

                                The HUnab Ku is a beautiful symbol just like the Sri Yantra and serves to harmonize our cells by the very virtue and imprint of its design thru the visionary cortex of our eye - deep into the Pineal and Hypothalamus - creating harmony in our system. Of course you can reject this by your very thoughts. That is up to you. It is you who will reap what you sow.

                                Blessings be to all.... may we have love and understanding for all in order to get thru and evolve from the 'seeming' mess we are in.

                                Omni love be to ALL who serve to raise awareness and peace thru culture.

                                Power to the peaceful
                                Peace to the powerful

                                Heya ho (I sing as the drum beats to the rhythm of myheart song....)
                                • Unsu...
                                   

                                  Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                  Fri, October 13, 2006 - 8:41 PM
                                  We are all so interconnected.... its funny really that we find ourselves arguing about WHO is the author of a symbol or a way of life.... There are many symbols in various cultures that show similarities. Alot of these symbols were given to people thru Dreamtime....

                                  It is my understanding thru my own dreamtime that we are all connected and have so much yet to learn.... there is no need for war.

                                  Om shanti om....
                                • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                  Sat, October 14, 2006 - 12:40 PM
                                  "Hoopes, the Nazi's took a very powerful Navaho symbol (swastica) and turned it into a state of dark affairs...."

                                  Navajo culture may indeed use a symbol similar or identical to the swastika, but the Nazis adopted it from India, where it is a widespread symbol representing the sun, and used for good luck. Hitler saw India as the geographic origin of the Aryan race, and therefore adopted the swastika from them.

                                  Ironically, he reversed the directionality of the swastika, thus on some level making it an "anti-swastika." The Indian version is always drawn so as to suggest a clockwise motion (part of the sun representation) but the Nazi version goes counterclockwise.

                                  Swastikas also were used in European culture as a symbol of good luck before WWII, again adopted from India. I have friends who own a victorian house in London, and their fireplace is decorated with tiles painted with swastikas, dating from the turn of the last century.
                                  • Unsu...
                                     

                                    Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                    Sun, October 15, 2006 - 1:29 PM
                                    Herodia than you for your insight. I knew of this regarding the "revresed" symbol and the aryan presence in India. It just goe to show further how very "different" cultures can come up with the same symbol. We are all so connected.
                            • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                              Fri, October 13, 2006 - 9:21 PM
                              "The whole point of this thread seems to be to belittle the use of the mentioned symbol and to make anyone who uses it seem foolish and mistaken."

                              Once again, I'd like to reiterate that "seems to be" does not mean that it IS, no matter how much you would like to believe that this is so.

                              Your ad hominem attacks and prejudicial insinuations are a smokescreen for the fact that I haven't said anything in this entire thread to belittle the use of this symbol. I've just tried to put it within an accurate historical context and assert that anyone who claims that this is an ancient Maya symbol or that it was ever used by the ancient Maya to represent the concept of "Hunab Ku" is, in fact, mistaken. If there is any scholarship to support claims that this information is wrong, none of it has ever been presented here, by Psi or anyone else.

                              Please feel free to assign whatever meaning to this symbol that you like. It's obviously become the object of a new mythology--one that apparently originated ca. 1987.
                              • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                Sat, October 14, 2006 - 1:09 PM
                                The Spanish killed hundreds thousands of Mayans and burned many thousands of Mayan documents. It is therefore absolutely impossible to know whether the Maya were using this symbol or not, whatever 'wiki' says and whatever the archaeological community say. Anyone who claims that they know what information was destroyed is making it up! You do not have "an accurate historical context" because the greater body of evidence was destroyed hundreds of years ago, which means that you are mistaken in your suposition.

                                I repeat, no one can know the exact roots of this symbol because most of the Mayan texts were destroyed. Any reference to this symbol is from whatever was left after the destruction.
                                Therefore you do not know and so to suggest that only 'scholarship' will prove anything, is nonsense and the real "smokescreen"
                                There is absolutely no point in going on about it as if you know. It is just as likely to be Maya as anyone else.

                                The fact remains that it is a profound and beautiful symbol, to anyone who understands anything about symbolism.

                                I rest my case.

                                Namaste
                                • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                  Sat, October 14, 2006 - 1:55 PM
                                  "It is just as likely to be Maya as anyone else."

                                  But that's not true. It is *most* likely to be Aztec, since it was illustrated by an indigenous artist in an Aztec codex:

                                  2012.tribe.net/photos/702...19cc3802bae

                                  It also happens to be illustrated in the *same* Aztec codex that contains the most graphic, indigenous illustrations of Aztec human sacrifice that are known:

                                  2012.tribe.net/photos/bda...2e9fdec0e1f

                                  If it's "just as likely" to be Maya as Aztec, why isn't it represented in any known Maya artwork? I don't think that arguments based on speculations of the contents of long-lost, unknown documents are very persuasive, despite how well they might work in the construction of a modern mythology concerning this symbol.

                                  To reiterate my arguments, which are of course open to further debate:

                                  - The symbol to which Psi refers appears to have been largely ignored until sometime after 1983, when Elizabeth Boone published a new facsimile of the Codex Magliabechiano, an Aztec document from the late 16th or early 17th century that was originally published by Zelia Nuttall in 1903. This symbol originally appeared on an Aztec "manta" or ritual cloak that was associated with a ceremony involving lip plugs.

                                  - John Major Jenkins mistakenly cited this symbol as appearing in the Nuttall Codex, a Mixtec document. It appears in the Codex Magliabechiano, an Aztec document. There is no evidence to indicated that this symbol was ever used by the ancient Maya. Rather, its appearance in an Aztec manuscript (one that includes a graphic depiction of human sacrifice) suggests that it is an Aztec symbol.

                                  - The similarities between this symbol and the Chinese yin/yang symbol are purely coincidental. The same is true for any similarities between this symbol and the spiral shape of the Milky Way galaxy. There is no evidence to indicate that any ancient peoples of Mexico or Central America were aware of either the yin/yang symbol or spiral galaxies.

                                  - The concept of "Hunab Ku" itself was invented by Spanish Catholic missionaries in order to use native terms to persuade Mayas of the existence of "one God". This term does not appear in any pre-Contact contexts. Rather, its earliest appearance is in the post-Contact "Books of Chilam Balam," which represent a blend of native Maya and Catholic beliefs created to assist with the process of Christian conversion of Maya populations.

                                  - The association between this symbol and the historic Yucatec Maya concept of "Hunab Ku" is recent, probably dating from some time between the late 1980s and early 1990s. I think that this association is most likely to have emerged from the work of José Arguelles and Hunbatz Men, but I have not yet documented just how or when this occured.

                                  I am not saying that any of this is "good" or "bad" but simply an explanation of part of the history of this symbol and its current mythology. It is not an ancient Maya symbol and was not used to represent "Hunab Ku" until sometime within the last two decades.

                                  I understand and appreciate that the symbol's meaning has changed and that it is now being used by individuals like Carl Johan Calleman in ways that are quite different from its original association with an Aztec lip plug ceremony.

                                  If someone has evidence to disprove any of this, I'd like very much to know about it.
                                  • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                    Sat, October 14, 2006 - 3:17 PM
                                    Hoopes, a question about Mesoamerican archaeology. If the Aztec sacrificed tens of thousands of captives, have remains of those sacrifices been found? Remains suggesting those kinds of numbers?
                                    • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                      Sat, October 14, 2006 - 4:37 PM
                                      This is a fascinating question. No, these kinds of physical remains have not been found. The assertion that the Aztecs were doing this is based on their own oral histories as recorded by Spanish soldiers and missionaries. (There are a LOT of reasons to be suspicious of these, because both the Aztec interviewees *and* the Spanish had motivations to fudge the numbers.)

                                      There has been a lot of scholarly debate over whether the Aztecs actually sacrificed "tens of thousands" of individuals or not. They do not seem to have done this on a regular basis. I can't remember the citation right now, but I seem to recall that the figure of 40,000 is associated with a specific, one-time dedication of the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlán, the Aztec capital, at which time it's said that lines of people to be sacrificed stretched across the causeways leading to the Aztec capital. This is part of Aztec oral history, not something the Spanish witnessed. The number is suspect and there are reasons to think that it may be an exaggeration. However, it is certainly entirely possible.

                                      I am not an Aztec scholar, but I could recommend some basic resources if someone wanted to follow up on this.
                                      • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                        Sun, October 15, 2006 - 10:53 AM
                                        <<
                                        I am not an Aztec scholar, but I could recommend some basic resources if someone wanted to follow up on this. >>

                                        Please do. Resources specifically about the evidence or lack of it for sacrifices in such large numbers.

                                        If no physical remains of sacrifices on such a scale have been found, how do people who believe in it account for the absence of remains? Even cremation would have left physical evidence.
                                        • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                          Sun, October 15, 2006 - 2:46 PM
                                          "If no physical remains of sacrifices on such a scale have been found, how do people who believe in it account for the absence of remains? Even cremation would have left physical evidence."

                                          The disposal of bodies may not have resulted in anything such as a mass grave. Soft parts were used, eaten, or discarded. Vultures and insects disposed of the flesh, while dogs, coyotes, wolves, and other critters could have crunched up the bones. Bodies don't last long in Mexico unless they're immediately buried. There are all kinds of processes that account for the absence of remains. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
                                          • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                            Sun, October 15, 2006 - 6:22 PM
                                            Well, was anything ever said by anyone about what was done with the remains? If the remains were just tossed out for scavengers, tens of thousands of rotting bodies would have created quite a sanitation problem. They would surely have had to transport them out somewhere to keep the smell out of the beautiful cities, and transporting tons of remains at a time would have been quite an undertaking, surely there would have been a comment about that recorded somewhere.
                                            • Unsu...
                                               

                                              Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                              Sun, October 15, 2006 - 6:27 PM
                                              I agree Gayle..... what gets me is the fact that "the assertion that the Aztecs were doing this is based on their own oral histories as recorded by Spanish soldiers and missionaries."

                                              As recorded by Spanish Missionaries? The same ones who wanted to take down their culture?????
                                              • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                                Mon, October 16, 2006 - 7:52 AM
                                                Well, there are also some Aztec manuscripts (such as the Codex Magliabechiano). The Spanish Conquest was a violent episode and history is almost always written by the victors. Scholars work hard to come up with *critical* interpretations of the accounts that survived. Some, like the narratives recorded by Fray Bernadino de Sahagún, were recorded in Nahuatl, the language of the Mexica (the dominant ethic group of the Aztecs), by scribes under the supervision of the priest.

                                                en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bern...hag%C3%BAn

                                                The Florentine Codex, which has been published as a multi-volume work in both Nahuatl and English by the University of Texas Press, is probably the richest souce of information on Aztec daily life. It includes a huge amount of information on traditional Aztec healing, medicinal plants, and natural history as well as information on rituals, customs, festivals, and the calendar. It's fun to look at just for the pictures, of which there are dozens.

                                                If you're going to question any information that might have been influenced by Spanish thought, you'll have to pitch out the Popol Vuh, the Books of Chilam Balam, and a huge amount of knowledge that comes from Maya shamans and healers of the Yucatan, Chiapas, and highland Guatemala. The process of European Conquest and missionization had a profound effect on every one of the indigenous cultures of the Americas. With the exception of Precolumbian documents, such as ancient hieroglyphic inscriptions, painted vessels, and artwork, there is virtually nothing from the Conquest and Colonial periods that was not affected in some way by missionaries.

                                                This is critical to keep in mind when evaluating statements made by individuals such as Hunbatz Men and other Maya elders, whose culture has been affected by missionaries for almost 500 years. Maya religion today is not "pure" in any sense. It is a synchretistic blend of indigenous, Catholic, Protestant, and New Age beliefs (which themselve include influences from Gnosticism, Theosophy, Buddhism, and indigenous traditions around the world). With the Internet reaching into the heart of Mayaland, it's likely that any knowledge we can access will also in some way make its way into the most remote Maya villages. In fact, evangelical Christian missionaries in search of converts and New Age seekers in search of gurus are the most likely to carry ideas from exotic, non-Maya traditions deep into the most remote locations. What results from that process is getting more difficult to interpret by the day. After 500 years of Christian missionaries, the Sixties, and the Internet, there are no indigenous voices that remain completely unaffected by that process.

                                                Globalization has made it almost impossible to be confident that anything is "authentic" to Precolumbian indigenous cultures unless it has come from secure archaeological contexts. However, that doesn't mean that a careful, critical analysis can't help to identify what is likely to have come into these traditions and when, or at the very least to demonstrate that it probably occurred.
                                                • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                                  Mon, October 16, 2006 - 8:34 AM
                                                  My point is that all post-Contact accounts of indigenous cultures contain bias, whether it's Fray Diego Durán and Fray Bernadino de Sahagún's interviews of Aztec elders in the 1500s or José Arguelles and Carl Johan Calleman's interviews of Maya elders since the 1980s.

                                                  Which are you likely to consider *more* reliable?

                                                  1) Information recorded almost 500 years ago, within a generation or two of the Spanish Conquest, by individuals who grew up in constant contact with indigenous people and either spoke or transcribed the actual language of their indigenous informants, or

                                                  2) Information recorded less than 25 years ago, dozens of generations after the Spanish Conquest (and its dramatic effects on populations, culture, and religion), by individuals who grew up in the U.S. or Europe and who have little or no knowledge of the actual languages spoken by their indigenous informants?

                                                  Both the Catholic missionaries of the 16th century and the New Age writers of the late 20th and early 21st centuries have definite agendas. How do you know what of the information any of them presents is representative of a "true" indigenous experience?
                                            • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                              Mon, October 16, 2006 - 7:28 AM
                                              "surely there would have been a comment about that recorded somewhere"

                                              If I recall correctly, there *are* comments about this, such as remarks about the streets and canals of Tenochtitlan flowing with blood. There are also comments about the cannibalistic consumption of human flesh, which might have accounted for some of the bodies, but this remains highly controversial.

                                              The principal means of transport would have been via canoes, of which there were thousands in Lake Texcoco. These regularly transported tons of goods and people around the Aztec capital. Don't forget that the Aztec capital was located on an island at the center of this lake. Many bones and other remains may have been disposed of in the lake. However, most of it was drained at the end of the 19th century and Mexico City, with a total population of over 25 million people, was built on top of it.
                                    • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                      Sat, October 14, 2006 - 5:58 PM
                                      The claim that the Aztecs sacrificed 40,000 people at the time of a major dedication of the Templo Mayor has always puzzled me. I have no idea what's a realistic amount of time to conduct a heart sacrifice, but let's say it took only five minutes to make a quick slice with an obsidian blade, remove the beating organ, and chuck a lifeless body down the stairs. Here's what the math looks like:

                                      40,000 X 5 minutes = 200,000 minutes = 3333 hours = ~ 139 24-hour days = ~ 20 weeks

                                      If you could reduce the slicing and chucking time to two minutes, it would be:

                                      40,000 X 2 minutes = 80,000 minutes = 1333 hours = 55 1/2 24-hour days = ~ 8 weeks

                                      I suppose one could get the job done in four weeks of round-the-clock sacrificing, but it would be exhausting, ugly business. Figure in a reasonable shift for an Aztec priest with matted hair, buzzing on mushrooms and morning glory seeds, and you need a fairly large crew to do the dirty deed. Not to mention a steady supply of hard-to-make, brittle obsidian knives. How many people could you sacrifice with one blade before needing a replacement?

                                      I've tried to get a grasp on what 40,000 victims would look like by using various mental models. The Burning Man festival is probably reaching about 40,000 people. In 2003, the Man was supported by a Mesoamerican-style pyramid. An Aztec-scale sacrifice at Burning Man would have required every single attendee to climb the pyramid and get whacked over a period of two to ten months, during which someone would be killed (and the body moved out of the way) every two to five minutes.

                                      Frankly, I have a hard time picturing this. Is there a better way to form an image of how this might have happened?
                                      • Unsu...
                                         

                                        Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                        Sat, October 14, 2006 - 6:24 PM
                                        In classical Chinese, the number 10,000 was used to indicate an innumerable quantity. In the broadest context, manifest existence was refered to as "The 10,000 things" (alternately translated, "The myriad creatures"). I've seen other cultural instances where a large round number signifies the boundry at which quantities become countless.

                                        Could it be that 40,000 was such a number to the Aztecs? Perhaps 40,000 just meant "too many to count". It would certainly be quite a tally to account for.
                                        • Re: Hunab Ku and this thread

                                          Sat, October 14, 2006 - 8:20 PM
                                          There are lots of parallels in Aztec thought. For example, the Aztec creation story refers to the "Four Hundred", a reference to the other sons of Coatlicue, the mother of Coyolxauqui and Huitzilopochtli. It's a family of metaphors. Coatlicue is the Earth, Coyolxauqui the Moon, Huitzilopochtli the Sun, and the Four Hundred the brightest stars.

                                          Numbers such as 400, 40,000 and 80,000 (remember, they used a vigesimal system) were probably in fact the Aztec equivalent of "too many to count".
  • Re: Hunab Ku

    Wed, June 13, 2007 - 9:23 AM
    This thread was started way back when, but I'm giving it a bump in honor of the icon's recent return.
    • Re: Hunab Ku

      Wed, June 13, 2007 - 4:52 PM
      I read this thread when I first encountered this tribe 3-4 months ago. It prompted me to acquire the book Hanub Ku by Karen and Joel Speerstra. Thanks for starting it and thanks for keeping it going.

      :D
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Hunab Ku

    Sun, April 4, 2010 - 10:20 AM
    Sorry to bring up an old post here, but in this documentary at around 4:00 minutes into the flick you will find the symbol of the Hunab Ku on these Sumerian Royal Tablets. www.youtube.com/watch

    Very interesting to say the least.
    I wonder what the ink is between Sumerians and the Mayans?
    • Re: Hunab Ku

      Fri, April 16, 2010 - 4:24 AM
      this is definitely a post worth reviving! kind of alot more polite than the last one, if i do recall....

      back in the day when things were relatively civil......heehe.....
    • Re: Hunab Ku

      Fri, April 16, 2010 - 5:50 AM
      "Very interesting to say the least."

      In a video about the Vril Society, no less.

      Vril
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vril

      "Vril is a substance described in Edward Bulwer-Lytton's 1871 novel The Coming Race, which was later reprinted as Vril: The Power of the Coming Race. The novel is an early example of science fiction. However, many early readers believed that its account of a superior subterranean master race and the energy-form called 'Vril' was accurate, to the extent that some theosophists accepted the book as truth."

      Lana, you've brought a lot of themes together with this one post. An unexpected tie-in with the fascist roots of 2012 as well as a new wrinkle in the expanding mythology.

      That's not a Hunab Ku symbol in the image. Your credulity never ceases to amaze me.

Recent topics in "Year 2012"