The Epic of Gilgamesh

[Guest guest]

I wanted to introduce you all to Jan Barendrecht, a long time contributor to

the Internet Spiritual lists. Jan has written informatively and

authoritatively on the "Raw Food Fruitarian" diet and the mystical

experiences related to Kundalini Shakti and how to interpret the symbolism

of it in various scriptures. Jan's writings are based on practical and

experiential knowledge as well as in-depth understanding that comes from

living the truth for many decades. In the following essay, Jan relates the

ancient Epic of Gilgamesh and interweaves the concepts of Alchemy, Eternal

Life, Immortality, and the Kundalini Shakti Symbolism.

 

The full essay can be read on the Website.

 

 

 

Introduction

Jan Barendrecht

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the oldest known written stories, the

earliest versions date to about 2000 B.C. The epic hails from ancient

Babylonia, a kingdom that was located in the area between the rivers Euphrat

and Tigris in what is now Iraq. The epic was originally written on clay

tablets in cuneiform, the wedge shaped characters of the Sumerian language.

The fullest surviving version of the epic, however, was written in Akkadian,

another Babylonian language.

 

By Jan Barendrecht

[Guest guest]

, "Harsha" <harsha-hkl@h...> wrote:

> I wanted to introduce you all to Jan Barendrecht, a long time

contributor to

> the Internet Spiritual lists. Jan has written informatively and

> authoritatively on the "Raw Food Fruitarian" diet and the mystical

> experiences related to Kundalini Shakti and how to interpret the

symbolism

> of it in various scriptures. Jan's writings are based on practical

and

> experiential knowledge as well as in-depth understanding that comes

from

> living the truth for many decades. In the following essay, Jan

relates the

> ancient Epic of Gilgamesh and interweaves the concepts of Alchemy,

Eternal

> Life, Immortality, and the Kundalini Shakti Symbolism.

>

> The full essay can be read on the Website.

>

>

>

> Introduction

> Jan Barendrecht

>

> The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the oldest known written stories,

the

> earliest versions date to about 2000 B.C. The epic hails from

ancient

> Babylonia, a kingdom that was located in the area between the rivers

Euphrat

> and Tigris in what is now Iraq. The epic was originally written on

clay

> tablets in cuneiform, the wedge shaped characters of the Sumerian

language.

> The fullest surviving version of the epic, however, was written in

Akkadian,

> another Babylonian language.

>

> By Jan Barendrecht

 

Namaste All,

 

Actually this epic was one of the first mystic things I ever read.

Many years before entering on to the spiritual path. At that time, I

thought they were talking about space people. There are other tablets

from that era and area that talk of descended beings creating hybrids

etc.( Von Daniken etc).

 

However after reading Cayce, Bhagavata Purana, Gen:6 I came to the

conclusion that what Cayce read in his akashic record was correct.

That there is an exoteric meaning as well as esoteric to the epic. The

King or whatever, being 1/3 human and 2/3 divine has a real meaning.

What he is saying is that he is one third human hominid and two thirds

Adamic astral descent as in Gen:6. Immortality has two meanings as

well, first it means liberation but also it means something literal.

 

The first Astral Descents had the ability to leave their bodies at

will and go back and forth between the material and astral without

having to go through the death process. They were not completely

concretised. Hence immortality!! Our 'character' was too much in

material like the rest of us.

 

As for esotericism well that can be applied anywhere of course. Cayce

for example has a complete explanation of the Book of Revelations and

the seven churches being the chakras. So it has the exoteric meanings

of prophecy etc but the esoteric meaning of liberation, and Kundalini.

 

I know this Gilgamesh epic was written down in Sumeria about 4,000

years ago,( which is comparatively recent and later than Krishan 3500

BC or Rama 18,000 BC or Amilius 108,000 BC) but much was written in

different letters much, much earlier. The Indus Valley will eventually

show this. Also the Mosaic or Musa legacy as well. The Puranas and

other ancient texts cover the same ground.

 

This takes nothing from the epic as such, except that it is not

original and goes back millenia upon millenia, to far earlier

writings, hundreds of thousands of years ago.

 

There are far older stories in India, even the sky described in the

Rig Veda is that of 8,000 B.C. indicating a date that it was

transcribed. Also probably not the original either.

 

One can learn math and atomic theory from the Arthava Veda for

instance. You will notice Oppenheimer and Einstein were well versed in

Hindu literature.

 

Om Namah Sivaya.....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan,

>The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the oldest known written stories, the

>earliest versions date to about 2000 B.C. The epic hails from ancient

>Babylonia, a kingdom that was located in the area between the rivers Euphrat

>and Tigris in what is now Iraq. The epic was originally written on clay

>tablets in cuneiform, the wedge shaped characters of the Sumerian language.

>The fullest surviving version of the epic, however, was written in Akkadian,

>another Babylonian language.

 

My copies are packed away in boxes, but I'm sure the Gilgamesh is Sumerian.

But maybe you're just using the name Babylonia to indicate the area, rather

than a specific kingdom... which was much later than the Gilgamesh, I

think. It came after Akkad, which came after Sumer.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

On 5/28/01 at 1:20 PM Dharma wrote:

 

ºHi Jan,

º

º>The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the oldest known written stories, the

º>earliest versions date to about 2000 B.C. The epic hails from ancient

º>Babylonia, a kingdom that was located in the area between the rivers

ºEuphrat

º>and Tigris in what is now Iraq. The epic was originally written on clay

º>tablets in cuneiform, the wedge shaped characters of the Sumerian

ºlanguage.

º>The fullest surviving version of the epic, however, was written in

ºAkkadian,

º>another Babylonian language.

º

ºMy copies are packed away in boxes, but I'm sure the Gilgamesh is Sumerian.

ºBut maybe you're just using the name Babylonia to indicate the area, rather

ºthan a specific kingdom... which was much later than the Gilgamesh, I

ºthink. It came after Akkad, which came after Sumer.

º

ºLove,

ºDharma

 

Hi Dharma,

 

One won't even know whether or not the epic was existing in other languages

before it appeared

in Sumerian cuneiform - the Sumerian characters used. The area known as

Mesopotamia has

hosted many peoples and was the scene of many a battle... That is was translated

in Akkadian

is but an indication that the epic had a certain value...

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan,

>†My copies are packed away in boxes, but I'm sure the Gilgamesh is Sumerian.

>†But maybe you're just using the name Babylonia to indicate the area, rather

>†than a specific kingdom... which was much later than the Gilgamesh, I

>†think. It came after Akkad, which came after Sumer.

>†

>

>One won't even know whether or not the epic was existing in other

>languages before it appeared

>in Sumerian cuneiform - the Sumerian characters used. The area known as

>Mesopotamia has

>hosted many peoples and was the scene of many a battle... That is was

>translated in Akkadian

>is but an indication that the epic had a certain value...

 

Well, the Akkadians used the Sumerian cuneiform... but I think the epic

talks about Sumerian cities and gods. Certainly seems to be Sumerian.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

, Dharma <deva@L...> wrote:

> >Mesopotamia has

> >hosted many peoples and was the scene of many a battle... That is

was

> >translated in Akkadian

> >is but an indication that the epic had a certain value...

>

> Well, the Akkadians used the Sumerian cuneiform... but I think the

epic

> talks about Sumerian cities and gods. Certainly seems to be

Sumerian.

 

There are different versions of the epic written in the different

languages and at different time points in history, the age indicated

is just that, an indication. The epic is old, but few archaeology

sources give specific dates for its origin since it probably was

handed down as a tale going by mouth before it was written down.

 

My source pointed to the most well known version with the full

tablets. It did not take into account the fragmented tablets or

various translations.

 

I don't remember which translation they pointed to and didn't bother

with it since Jan didn't refer to a specific translation or version

in the article, he wrote the article from memory of the epic.

 

The intention with presenting the epic on the site was not to discuss

its linguistically origins or the specific culture behind it, but to

offer an interpretation which is relevant for a non dual discussion

forum and which is somewhat different from the usual interpretations

offered by translations.

 

 

Love,

 

A.

[Guest guest]

Hi Amanda,

>There are different versions of the epic written in the different

>languages and at different time points in history, the age indicated

>is just that, an indication. The epic is old, but few archaeology

>sources give specific dates for its origin since it probably was

>handed down as a tale going by mouth before it was written down.

>

>My source pointed to the most well known version with the full

>tablets. It did not take into account the fragmented tablets or

>various translations.

>

>I don't remember which translation they pointed to and didn't bother

>with it since Jan didn't refer to a specific translation or version

>in the article, he wrote the article from memory of the epic.

 

Be cool, friend. I wasn't atacking Jan. I was confused by his use of

the name "Babylonia" as an equivalent for "Mesopotamia"... so I asked.

But in his full text on the epic, he clearly says it was Sumerian. End of

problem.

 

It wasn't about languages or texts or translations...

>The intention with presenting the epic on the site was not to discuss

>its linguistically origins or the specific culture behind it,

 

Why do you have a problem with talking about the culture that the epic came

from? I don't see how you can discuss any work, but _especially_ an epic,

without some awareness of the culture it came from.

 

And the fact that this work came from Sumer is especially interesting

because that's the earliest known civilization in Mesopotamia... and

people argue about whether it's older than Egypt or not. And it's a

mystery! No one knows who the Sumerians were, where they came from. Their

pictures look very different from the Akkadians who followed them. And

their language is unrelated to any other known language! The Akkadians

adopted their form of writing, but their language was quite different...

Semitic, as I recall.

 

I have always been fascinated by the mystery of the Sumerians. Last I

heard, the Basque language was also unrelated to any other known language.

Doesn't this open up interesting thoughts?

 

I used to teach Great World Literature, and we began with the _Gilgamesh_.

It stands at the very beginning of our literature... so far as we know.

Kind of puts the _Odyssey_ into a proper perspective to read its much

earlier predecessor.

>offer an interpretation which is relevant for a non dual discussion

>forum and which is somewhat different from the usual interpretations

>offered by translations.

 

Well, what would you like to discuss about non-duality and the _Gilgamesh_?

I won't ask any questions about Jan's thoughts on gnostic elements in the

epic, lest you think I'm attacking.

 

An interesting and provocative article, Jan!

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

, Dharma <deva@L...> wrote:

> >The intention with presenting the epic on the site was not to

discuss

> >its linguistically origins or the specific culture behind it,

>

> Why do you have a problem with talking about the culture that the

epic came

> from? I don't see how you can discuss any work, but _especially_

an epic,

> without some awareness of the culture it came from.

 

There is perhaps room for a discussion of the culture(s) where the

epic came from here on the list, but I didn't put a discussion of

that in the intro for the article since a discussion of culture was

not the focus for the article.

 

The intro was written to give a short presentation of the epic and

its background for the readers who might not be familiar with the

epic, like for example many young readers without a background in

literature, archaelogy or mythology would probably not be familiar

with the epic itself, but only the name Gilgamesh (as it has been

used in some popular video games). I did not assume the story line

and characters of the epic was general knowledge and that's why a

short intro was added.

> And the fact that this work came from Sumer is especially

interesting

> because that's the earliest known civilization in Mesopotamia...

and

> people argue about whether it's older than Egypt or not. And it's a

> mystery! No one knows who the Sumerians were, where they came

from. Their

> pictures look very different from the Akkadians who followed them.

And

> their language is unrelated to any other known language! The

Akkadians

> adopted their form of writing, but their language was quite

different...

> Semitic, as I recall.

 

Yeah that is interesting. Tell us if you find sources which tell

where they came from and more about their connection to the Basques.

> Well, what would you like to discuss about non-duality and the

_Gilgamesh_?

> I won't ask any questions about Jan's thoughts on gnostic elements

in the

> epic, lest you think I'm attacking.

 

The article itself was the discussion; a presentation of the epic in

light of non duality and a discussion whether such an interpretation

was possible, on the background of personal experience. I thought it

was very interesting that someone could present an interpretation and

possible connection between the ancient civilizations of the epic and

the Indian Advaita Vedanta and western non duality (as a mix, putting

no strict scholarly separation between the two as the final outcome

should be the same).

 

If the interpretation could be backed up with linguistic pointers and

a new interpretation of the symbolism under a comparison with perhaps

similar symbols found in Indian sources, the article could have

provoked reactions in archaelogy and comparative religion circles

since it would have been suggestive of possible connections between

these peoples and those further east in the area of modern India.

 

More importantly, the article suggests the general and very

ancient "principle" of non duality, suggest its pervasiveness

throughout history and human civilization from the oldest known story

till today and its general efficacy in humanity independent of

whether the civilization reporting it is in the mid East or India.

 

Also, this alternative interpretation would offer an interpretation

of the epic which is much closer to the situation of modern man and

his/her daily struggle rather than a quaint old story about what the

ancient civilizations believed (for example that monsters lived in

Cedar forests in ancient Libya) and which has little actuality for

modern man, which is the case of most scholarly accepted

interpretations of the epic.

 

 

Love,

 

Amanda.

[Guest guest]

Hi Amanda,

>> >The intention with presenting the epic on the site was not to

>discuss

>> >its linguistically origins or the specific culture behind it,

>>

>> Why do you have a problem with talking about the culture that the

>epic came

>> from? I don't see how you can discuss any work, but _especially_

>an epic,

>> without some awareness of the culture it came from.

>

>There is perhaps room for a discussion of the culture(s) where the

>epic came from here on the list, but I didn't put a discussion of

>that in the intro for the article since a discussion of culture was

>not the focus for the article.

 

When you discuss a people's epic, you ARE discussing their culture. Their

heroes, their gods, their myths...

>The intro was written to give a short presentation of the epic and

>its background for the readers who might not be familiar with the

>epic, like for example many young readers without a background in

>literature, archaelogy or mythology would probably not be familiar

>with the epic itself, but only the name Gilgamesh (as it has been

>used in some popular video games). I did not assume the story line

>and characters of the epic was general knowledge and that's why a

>short intro was added.

 

You mean you wrote the intro, not Jan? I didn't mean to attack your

writing... I've just never heard the name Babylonia used for that part of

the world before, but maybe in some places people do. Babylon came long

after the epic, and that's what I found confusing.

>> And the fact that this work came from Sumer is especially

>interesting

>> because that's the earliest known civilization in Mesopotamia...

>and

>> people argue about whether it's older than Egypt or not. And it's a

>> mystery! No one knows who the Sumerians were, where they came

>from. Their

>> pictures look very different from the Akkadians who followed them.

>And

>> their language is unrelated to any other known language! The

>Akkadians

>> adopted their form of writing, but their language was quite

>different...

>> Semitic, as I recall.

>

>Yeah that is interesting. Tell us if you find sources which tell

>where they came from and more about their connection to the Basques.

 

As far as I know, nobody knows... though I don't try to keep up with

research in that field.

 

I think Cayce said the Basques came from Atlantis.

>> Well, what would you like to discuss about non-duality and the

>_Gilgamesh_?

>> I won't ask any questions about Jan's thoughts on gnostic elements

>in the

>> epic, lest you think I'm attacking.

>

>The article itself was the discussion; a presentation of the epic in

>light of non duality and a discussion whether such an interpretation

>was possible, on the background of personal experience. I thought it

>was very interesting that someone could present an interpretation and

>possible connection between the ancient civilizations of the epic and

>the Indian Advaita Vedanta and western non duality (as a mix, putting

>no strict scholarly separation between the two as the final outcome

>should be the same).

 

I did not see this in the article. The title on the main part of it is

"From a Gnostic Perspective," and it seems to be about gnostic elements in

the epic. I don't think we can equate all gnosticism with a non-dual

perspective.

 

Jan does use the word "nonduality" once:

>The notion that the epic has a gnostic side, is furthered also because

>Enkidu has to die - after Gilgamesh scorns the goddess of love (refuses

>her advances, refuses duality) and Enkidu even manages to offend her...

>Which is a deed, Enkidu must pay for with death, "leaving" only the

>"higher" Self... The mentioning of the "netherworld" is symbolic for the

>unconscious and when the "dungeon of murkiness" is empty,

>liberation/nonduality is "fact".

 

I would like to have heard more about that... "the dungeon of murkiness"

sounds like a term from a specific gnostic tradition, with a specific

meaning and context.

>If the interpretation could be backed up with linguistic pointers

 

I don't think you can find any linguistic pointers re. the Sumerian

language, except perhaps through a comparative study of the names of

gods... and just possibly of place-names.

> and

>a new interpretation of the symbolism under a comparison with perhaps

>similar symbols found in Indian sources, the article could have

>provoked reactions in archaelogy and comparative religion circles

>since it would have been suggestive of possible connections between

>these peoples and those further east in the area of modern India.

 

I think it was Joseph Campbell who first pointed out, in _The Hero With a

Thousand Faces_, that the Gilgamesh is the first known occurrence in

literature of the archetypal myth of the journey of the hero and his

descent into the underworld. The same story is seen in _The Odyssey_ and

countless other works. I'm not familiar with much of Indian literature,

but I would expect it to be found there as well... the archetypal pattern

seems to be universal.

 

Well, now you've got me really interested! I don't have _The Hero_ here,

but I went to look in another of Campbell's books. And I found some very

interesting comparisons. I'll scan a few pages for you.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

, Dharma <deva@L...> wrote:

Namaste Dharma,

 

Basques were Atlantean Descendants, their language is similar to no

other Indo-European language in Europe, but its sentence structure is

similar only to the North American languages. Which fits the Atlantean

theory. Their genetics are shared by Northern Irish and Scottish.( Uni

of Milan study).

 

There was a strong relationship between the Indus Valley and Sumeria.

 

ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

, Dharma <deva@L...> wrote:

> >The article itself was the discussion; a presentation of the epic

in

> >light of non duality and a discussion whether such an

interpretation

> >was possible, on the background of personal experience.

> I did not see this in the article. The title on the main part of

it is

> "From a Gnostic Perspective," and it seems to be about gnostic

elements in

> the epic. I don't think we can equate all gnosticism with a non-

dual

> perspective.

 

That is right, one usually can't equate much with the non-dual

perspective until equating stops and one is taken by the perspective

and its 360 degree angle of being.

 

The article suggests that the epic describes the process of

approaching the non-dual being. Had the angle of the story been

chosen as that of non-duality and no process to approach this, the

form of the story probably wouldn't have been in that of an epic but

more similar to the teaching texts of Advaita Vedanta and this text

may then not have survived to modern times.

> >The notion that the epic has a gnostic side, is furthered also

because

> >Enkidu has to die - after Gilgamesh scorns the goddess of love

(refuses

> >her advances, refuses duality) and Enkidu even manages to offend

her...

> >Which is a deed, Enkidu must pay for with death, "leaving" only the

> >"higher" Self... The mentioning of the "netherworld" is symbolic

for the

> >unconscious and when the "dungeon of murkiness" is empty,

> >liberation/nonduality is "fact".

>

> I would like to have heard more about that... "the dungeon of

murkiness"

> sounds like a term from a specific gnostic tradition, with a

specific

> meaning and context.

 

My choice would be not to bother with what exactly the "dungeon of

murkiness" is since it would have to go anyway. I would choose not to

focus on the archetypes themselves but that which created the

archetypes, or I would start to get the feeling I didn't see the

forest for the trees. But that would be my choice.

 

Love,

 

A.

[Guest guest]

Hi Amanda,

>>The title on the main part of [Jan's article] is

>> "From a Gnostic Perspective," and it seems to be about gnostic

>elements in

>> the epic. I don't think we can equate all gnosticism with a non-

>dual

>> perspective.

>

>That is right, one usually can't equate much with the non-dual

>perspective until equating stops and one is taken by the perspective

>and its 360 degree angle of being.

 

Well, talk about apples and oranges! If "equating" stops, we won't be

discussing at all.

>The article suggests that the epic describes the process of

>approaching the non-dual being. >snip<

 

Why haggle about what Jan was saying when he's on the list? He can tell us

himself what he meant.

>snip<

>> I would like to have heard more about that... "the dungeon of

>murkiness"

>> sounds like a term from a specific gnostic tradition, with a

>specific

>> meaning and context.

>

>My choice would be not to bother with what exactly the "dungeon of

>murkiness" is since it would have to go anyway. I would choose not to

>focus on the archetypes themselves but that which created the

>archetypes, or I would start to get the feeling I didn't see the

>forest for the trees. But that would be my choice.

 

That was Jan's choice of words. Aren't you interested in what he chose to

say and the terms he chose to say it with?

 

If not, if his terms "have to go anyway," why are we talking about his article?

 

Dharma