Quote:[...] the neo-Platonist Porphyry considered Athene in the Cave of the Nymphs to have taught Odysseus detachment from earthly goods and expounded the doctrine of transmigration.(The above is written by a Brit non-Hellene.)
[...]
No less than his philosophical opponents, Porphyry wrenches his author's text, presuming in him a knowledge of ancient mystery cults which is incompatible with the whole tenor of the poem. I take it that in the Homeric world some knowledge of these things had survived, but that in the poet's [color="#800080"][Homer's][/color] own environment it had almost altogether faded. The Odyssey keeps many vestiges of older traditional religion -- one would be perplexed if it did not. The Cave of the Nymphs with its human and its divine entrance is indeed a natural place for initiation; the four paradisal streams on Calypso's island belong of course to ancient cosmogony, but for Homer these things seem no more numinous than [color="#800080"]<analogy irrelevant and unfamiliar to present audience>[/color].
[...]
I've left out the rest though it continues on the topic for a short space thereafter. And the bits replaced with ellipses are not relevant to the reasons for posting.
I suppose since I've chosen this particular excerpt - chosen because it was briefer than others that spoke of the ancientry of such notions in Hellenismos - some notes may be warranted, for any who may not already know.
[But before that: Quick Someone, call in the ur-Shramanism peddlers, to declare that even the *pre* Homeric Hellenistic tradition - which is where Porphyry and the rest get their views from - were influenced/shaped by (the recently-invented and backprojected) ur-Shramanism. No? Am I wrong? I mean, doesn't all renunciation - such as "detachment from earthly goods" - and all notions/doctrines of "transmigration" derive from the concocted ur-Shramanism onlee, older though the known and established heathen traditions be?
But this is the heathenism thread, so I'll leave out the silly ur-Shramanism and leave off making jibes at it, though it's actually sadly true that absurd claims by ur-Shramanism peddlers have been launched on Hellenismos too. Ugh. Yuck. Perhaps a post on that some day. Though I hope not.]
Anyway, comments worth making perhaps:
1. Porphyry (late antiquity) is following an older tradition in reading Homer as he does. At the very least, he finds an older Hellenistic tradition present in the above-described event in the [termination of the] wanderings of Odysseus, hence even as relayed by Homer.
And the above excerpt admits at least that much: that the explication of Hellenistic mysteries that Porphyry in his much later time finds in Homer (~mid 8th century BCE) were ancient Hellenistic views and indeed pre-Homer. Actually, ancient even in Homer's time.
2. Porphyry et al's *manner* of reading is very valid and goes back to an old tradition. This is how initiates into Hellenistic mysteries would read their narratives, especially narratives concerning the Gods: reading things that are not transparent/not obviously there for everyone, let alone non-Hellenistic readers. . I.e. they perceive extra dimensions to the material, things which are not written/said overtly, but which are seen as being implicitly there and as having *always* been present in the text, with that intention (e.g. the way the Daoists during ritual practice demonstrate how a famous texts of theirs - one which aliens declare makes no reference to Gods - actually makes copious reference to Gods throughout). The sacred Orphic narrative collection concerning the Hellenistic Gods, for example, was used for religious reading/ritual practise and was made full and proper sense of - was set in its proper context - only by initiates, therefore an outsider who reads it 'straightforwardly' will never get at its actual meaning. From what I can tell, the initiates read these things in the same manner as Porphyry reads Homer (although that was the *primary* way to read the particular collection): perceiving the things left unsaid based on the express motifs clearly present that are pregnant with meaning to the native Hellenistic mind - and especially to the initiates of Hellenistic mysteries - and which they alone know how to read.
(Porphyry was a what's called Platonist "neo-Platonist". IIRC this basically meant a whole range of Hellenistic practices, from theurgy and Orphic mysteries to of course having views that Plato and other Hellenistic forbears had held.)
Even in general, Hellenes had a certain set of views concerning their Gods - the right views for their religion - that the casual non-Hellenstic reader of their materials does not have and can't really acquire. It's their stuff, they understand it correctly and know how to read it. Not everything is written for straightforward/outsider WYSIWYG reading after all - certainly not a lot of heathen stuff** - contrary to how world mythologists read these things. (At best, the latter have only ever pretended - by using their tendency for bad interpolations - to know/understand the layered meanings and the implicit bits, and even invented other meanings never present, but it's amazing how often they're wrong: even everyday ancient Hellenes easily perceived things in their texts that completely bypasses the mythologists who claim great expertise. But then, the latter specifically don't *want* these materials to be read in the native heathen way, and don't accept native heathen readings of heathen materials, which is the other problem. Native heathens have insider views - impossible to be acquired by outsiders - which defeats the whole claim to expertise of the outsiders, who simply *can't* see it that way and don't understand where the natives are getting it all from and think the natives are 'simply making too much of it', or elsewhere, sometimes 'not making enough of it'.)
[** Also, in the larger context of heathenisms all over the world: some heathen materials and some heathenisms in entirety are not meant for other ethnic groups, no matter how desperate alien persons are to dabble in others' concerns.]
3. As for the particular case of whether Homer - in composing versions based off older narratives - actually *intended* what Porphyry found to be present in the work, becomes secondary at this point. Still, in defence of Porphyry, one can state some facts that at least do not provide any evidence to contradict his reading:
As per Hellenistic tradition concerning their sacred ..."bards" [and Homer as a bard is himself a product of this tradition] and concerning the origin of both their knowledge of the lays they recount and their knowledge of their craft, and since Homer describes himself as relaying what the Goddess (one of the Muses, daughters of Zeus) is showing him - at times in vision, else in transference of information/presumably words - Homer is *recounting*, no more no less. At its plainest, a non-Hellene can say he is doing no more than recounting/developing/embellishing a long-standing tradition among his contemporaries: that of the fortunes and fallout from Ilium.
The Hellenistic view - and that of the composer, which he made known even in the sacred formulaic opening/invocation - is that it was divinely instilled/obtained. (IIRC he asks the Goddess Muse to sing to him about one and to teach him the other on which he composed). Whatever else one can say, many an ancient Greek regarded the compositions of this bard of theirs (as that of their others) sacred and divinely-inspired.
Be that as it may, if there *were* embedded mysteries in the epic Homeric compositions or the 2nd one at any rate - as there certainly were in other 'mainstream' Hellenistic works and performances of the time (and some performances at temples *were* the mysteries) - it's unlikely Homer would have revealed these more openly anyway: such elements were always meant for the initiated, and it is they who would know what to make of the additional layer of meaning, whereas the rest of the audience will overlook this part but take the more general message intended for them. ** So I still think one can't actually conclude whether Homer "knew" or didn't: embedded mysteries were there to be recognised and pondered by those in the know, not to be openly explicated by the narrator/bard even were they an initiate themselves - since he is performing to a *general* public. In other words: I guess, we'll never really "know" whether Homer "knew". We only have the likes of ancient Hellenes initiated into even more ancient Hellenistic Mysteries to go on, such as Porphyry and others initiated into Hellenstic Mysteries: if they find tell-tale indicators of their Mysteries and think it is clearly present and well-defined in the texts, well then, it is *their* stuff after all, meaning: they *are* the ones to recognise this, if anyone. It's not really a matter for any alien or any other heathen to comment on.
[Also, it's not like Homer was never recognised as being one in the know of the Gods: IIRC at least some of the Homeric Hymns were ascribed to him (or thought to be), and which were used for... well, for what the word Hymn stands for in their religion. Clearly the Hellenes must have considered their composer to be an expert for them to have considered these hymns and the ritual knowledge they contained to be sacred.]
** In this context, need to remember that the Hellenes took divulging mysteries as a criminal offence. IIRC, within about 3 centuries from Homer, Aeschylus was prosecuted for allegedly blabbing about the Eleusinian Mysteries, but was then let off the hook when it transpired that he hadn't. (How refreshingly different from the modern hobby of Indian traitors/religion-salesmen inviting and teaching *aliens* to dabble...)
Long disclaimer: the opening quoteblock of this post is not put here for the purpose of "Look, what a great 'coincidence' of similarity to ideas Hindus may be familiar with." There is nothing of surprise or revelation in it - there shouldn't be. (Ur-Shramanisms and their ignorance and desperation to encroach notwithstanding, no one else needs be surprised, especially as transmigration was an early view among Hellenes and co-existed with their other ancient views on the afterlife, as is well-known.) Such views, as also monism, are terribly common (but not the sole views) among ancient established heathenisms - in general lines of course, as specifics differ.
In fact, most of the - admittedly few - heathen religions that I have a fleeting familiarity with - though not all - seem to have the notion of transmigration. That's not to say these same general features are present in each and every heathenism, as that would be an inane blanket statement to make.
What's unique about Hindu religion is that which is unique about every other similar heathenism. It's actually what is unique to ethnic populations: the characters and persons of the Gods, and specific traditions native to the religion. They're not shared and non-shareable. Also, details differ. Such as exact rituals (again, non-shareable), sacred works, views, etc. These form the individual character and identity of the individual heathenisms of the world. [It correlates with ethno-geography.] Hindu Gods are connected to ethnic Hindus, it's why they're our ancestral Gods. A rather useful example for the context: Hindu Gods are connected to Hindu families and communities and the Hindu populace as a whole, the way Athena is attached to Odysseus' line. (So even without - in the comparison - much familiarity with his son Telemachos, she jumps in whole-heartedly in his favour to help him, thereby attaching the next generation even more to her than he already was. IIRC Nestor perceives Athena when she reveals herself in Telemachos' company, and he notices how Telemachos is favoured by her just as she favours the boy's father with her constant presence and thought for him. Nestor then proceeds to eagerly worship Athena, requesting that she may love and watch over himself and his family/future generations in similar manner.) Anyway, this is how Hindu Gods are attached to Hindus: your ancestors secured that attachment for you, and your own attachment to the Gods continues their connection with you and with subsequent generations. [And when you seriously break that connection, it looks bad for more than yourself, and you leave it for those others to pick up the pieces.] Aliens have no connection to our Gods, self-delusions notwithstanding (e.g. one alien femme declared that 'she *feels* that Budhan wants her to pray to him' - typical new ageist nonsense). Aliens are people whose heathen ancestors had a two-way connection with their own ancestral Gods, but which connection the present-day aliens' christo-converted/islamised ancestors broke in a long succession. That's why any alien wanting to be a heathen has to make the effort to re-establish a connection with his/her ancestral Gods. This effort is huge - doubly so because they have to undo their ancestors' crime of abandoning the Gods and "prove their trustworthiness/loyalty" as it were - but the effort will pay dividends for themselves and their progeny in future if they secure success. But instead of that, alien dabblers terrorise *other* people's Gods/encroach on other populations' religions. Which is a double error: they perpetuate their ancestors' crime of abandoning their own Gods by yet refusing to retrieve their own Gods, but are then chasing after Gods not connected to them, i.e. others' Gods. Why do they imagine Others' Gods will look favourably on a population that remains estranged from their own? It's like some kid publicly kicking his own good parents and then pretending that sucking up to someone else's parents will lead to his own adoption by them.)
But I strayed from the point again (but hey, at least I left out examples of how old/established Hindoo readings/perceptions/views of Hindoo works get dismissed by non-Hindus, the way Porphyry's views are demoted - by a British non-Hellene writing so far removed in time and mindset - as being but 'probably projected onto Homer').
The point of this post is there in the opening blockquote.
Death to traitors.