The new movie should have been released on the auspicious Thursday (Thor's day)
Thor is the Germanic Pagan name for a figure grown to mythic proportions. It is none other than Sakka (Sanskrit, Sakra), king of the "gods." The gods in questions are devas (literally, "shining ones," a class of relatively low-ranking celestial beings superior to humans in many ways).
While Sakka figures into many Buddhist tales (jatakas), discourses (sutras), and Buddhist cosmology, Buddhism did not invent Sakka. It inherited him from Brahmanism, the dominant religious teaching of the Buddha's day. Relying on the Vedas, Brahmanism went on to seed many of the world's religions (particularly Hinduism and, in a jumbled way, Catholicism, Christianity, and Judaism).
To the Hindus, Sakka (a.k.a. Thor) was Indra, an amalgamation rooted in an older god (heavenly king) Rudra, the "god of thunder."
To the Catholics and Christians and Jews, Sakka is -- according to the analysis of Wisdom Quarterly -- St. Michael. For Sakka is most famous for one thing he did in heaven.
The name of that heaven, two tiers up from Earth, is the Realm of the Thirty-Three (Tavatimsa). And the legendary act was evicting the rebellious leader of the "demons" (asuras).
Christians are confounded, assuming "God" (Odin/Zeus/Deus in Latin, Dios in Spanish) did his own tossing. But the actual evicting was done by St. Michael, an archangel. And the devas in Buddhism and Hinduism are quite like "angels" in Christianity and Judaism. Many of them being female (devis), they are quite like the Valkyries. (Of course, as in all things Christian, credit soon devolves to Jesus, the only "son of god").
While Sakka figures into many Buddhist tales (jatakas), discourses (sutras), and Buddhist cosmology, Buddhism did not invent Sakka. It inherited him from Brahmanism, the dominant religious teaching of the Buddha's day. Relying on the Vedas, Brahmanism went on to seed many of the world's religions (particularly Hinduism and, in a jumbled way, Catholicism, Christianity, and Judaism).
To the Hindus, Sakka (a.k.a. Thor) was Indra, an amalgamation rooted in an older god (heavenly king) Rudra, the "god of thunder."
To the Catholics and Christians and Jews, Sakka is -- according to the analysis of Wisdom Quarterly -- St. Michael. For Sakka is most famous for one thing he did in heaven.
The name of that heaven, two tiers up from Earth, is the Realm of the Thirty-Three (Tavatimsa). And the legendary act was evicting the rebellious leader of the "demons" (asuras).
Christians are confounded, assuming "God" (Odin/Zeus/Deus in Latin, Dios in Spanish) did his own tossing. But the actual evicting was done by St. Michael, an archangel. And the devas in Buddhism and Hinduism are quite like "angels" in Christianity and Judaism. Many of them being female (devis), they are quite like the Valkyries. (Of course, as in all things Christian, credit soon devolves to Jesus, the only "son of god").
- No Christian knows what "son of god" or "only begotten son" actually means because the title does not come from their tradition. Having borrowed, they have had to invent meanings for it. Buddhism teaches us what it refers to: "Son of god," or devaputra, is a popular Buddhist/Brahminical reference which simply means a deva, "one reborn among the devas." It is hardly a unique descriptor that fits only JC. We can all becomes devas and devis, sons and daughters of devas. And sadly this was Christ's message, for which he got crucified. What was he saying other than we as humans have divine potential? We can all be reborn in heaven(s); don't let these "demons" (rebellious angels who themselves are angry because they got thrown out) pull you down.*
- Who could this great all-powerful creator God be other than Buddhism's Maha-Brahma, the Great Supremo, who is great but is hardly supreme. There are many greater "Gods" (brahmas), none of whom actually "created" the universe, although they may have built their realms through the fruits of karma and by wielding magic.
- But just as Jesus soon gets called God, Thor is called God, and yet it is this Sakka/Indra who was originally called the "god of gods," the "lord of lords, the "king of kings." Buddhism explains why.
In fact, the similarities are so strong from culture to culture -- with only the names and regional details changing -- that it soon becomes clear we are talking about the same beings/legendary figures.
- Wikipedia's Thor: In Norse mythology, largely recorded in Iceland from traditional material stemming from Scandinavia, numerous tales and information about Thor are provided. In these sources, Thor bears at least fourteen names, is the husband of the golden-haired goddess Sif, is the lover of the jotunn Jarnsaxa, and is generally described as fierce-eyed, red-haired and red-bearded.[1]
Buddhism has a beautiful twist on Sakka/Thor. Not only is he married, his wife (or chief consort) is an asuran princess. Asuras are of course the "demons," those rowdy "angels of light" gone bad by rebellion and thrown out of Second Heaven, the Realm of the Thirty-Three, where the 33 refers to "lords" (chief devas).
If the 33 are "lords" and Sakka is their lord, sort of the chief of the council, then his title in that world is "lord of lords."
But Sakka rules our skies too. And our skies -- our near-Earth space -- is divided into four quarters, the cardinal directions. Each is assigned for caretaking to a sky-"king." These Four Great Kings (catu-maha-rajikas) answer to Sakka, the chief caretaker of Earth. Sakka is therefore quite sensibly called the "king of kings."
What did not make sense in Christianity makes perfect sense in Buddhism. It may be no more believable, but when we go to direct sources, there is a lot less muddling. And because Christianity aggregates to itself much more importance, power, and privilege (as an amalgamation-religion borrowing parts from here, there, and all over), it soon crumbles under the weight of its grandeur and self-importance.
"Jesus in Kashmir (India)" BBC documentary
What was once a relatively minor, but enormously important deva in Earth terms, somehow gets blown out of proportion into "creator of the universe." Why this happened may be traced back, at least in Buddhism, to Maha-Brahma's hubris. His vaulting ambition to impress his retinue and everyone beneath him right down to you and me.
"Hell: The Devil's Domain" documentary (History Channel)
Verily, verily I say to thee, one will never really understand Christianity without studying Buddhism.
And Catholicism never made a bit of sense on its own terms but came to make perfect sense when I learned Hinduism in college.
Jesus (St. Issa in India) was a Buddhist and one well acquainted with Brahmanism (which survives modified as Hinduism) and Jainism and yoga, and someday the Vatican and Protestant scholars will have to publicly admit (as many already do in private) that Jesus lived in India:
His "missing years" were never "missing" at all but were purposely excised from the Bible during its long construction through various councils. The motive was to make a new religion independent of the Wisdom of the East from which it came because Jesus lived in the [geopolitical] West. And never mind that he found his greatness through the East.
The Catholics and Vatican have made the muddling worse because they tried to further universalize (catholic just means "universal") the religion taking it further and further from its roots to set it apart as "the greatest story ever told."
If it's a great story -- and it is no accident that Roman Catholicism is the world's largest religion today -- it's because it "borrowed" so much of the story from so many other traditions. But the result is not a religion we can all get behind; it's a mess.
And we forget that this is the old Thor story. And who outside of early Buddhism has even heard of Sakka?
If the 33 are "lords" and Sakka is their lord, sort of the chief of the council, then his title in that world is "lord of lords."
But Sakka rules our skies too. And our skies -- our near-Earth space -- is divided into four quarters, the cardinal directions. Each is assigned for caretaking to a sky-"king." These Four Great Kings (catu-maha-rajikas) answer to Sakka, the chief caretaker of Earth. Sakka is therefore quite sensibly called the "king of kings."
What did not make sense in Christianity makes perfect sense in Buddhism. It may be no more believable, but when we go to direct sources, there is a lot less muddling. And because Christianity aggregates to itself much more importance, power, and privilege (as an amalgamation-religion borrowing parts from here, there, and all over), it soon crumbles under the weight of its grandeur and self-importance.
"Jesus in Kashmir (India)" BBC documentary
What was once a relatively minor, but enormously important deva in Earth terms, somehow gets blown out of proportion into "creator of the universe." Why this happened may be traced back, at least in Buddhism, to Maha-Brahma's hubris. His vaulting ambition to impress his retinue and everyone beneath him right down to you and me.
- The leader of the "demons" (asuras) in that heaven was not "Satan." [Christians do not know who Satan is but can find out their own history of this figure by watching this exciting story of the development of Hell]. But since satan means "accuser," he was that. The leader was not Lucifer (light bearer), but h seems to have held up a torch in rebellion, so sort of. In Buddhism, the rebel leader's name is Vepacitti (Sanskrit, Vemacitrin), chief of the legion of asuras who were tossed out by Thor/Sakka. The devas were the "hosts" (good or defensive battalions because, in case one hasn't noticed, there's a lot of war in the lower heavens). The devil, the great satan, the Cupid, the tempter, the beautiful heavenly "angel" (deva) even Maha-Brahma has to worry about is Mara Devaputra (the "corrupter born among the devas").
"Hell: The Devil's Domain" documentary (History Channel)
Verily, verily I say to thee, one will never really understand Christianity without studying Buddhism.
And Catholicism never made a bit of sense on its own terms but came to make perfect sense when I learned Hinduism in college.
Jesus (St. Issa in India) was a Buddhist and one well acquainted with Brahmanism (which survives modified as Hinduism) and Jainism and yoga, and someday the Vatican and Protestant scholars will have to publicly admit (as many already do in private) that Jesus lived in India:
His "missing years" were never "missing" at all but were purposely excised from the Bible during its long construction through various councils. The motive was to make a new religion independent of the Wisdom of the East from which it came because Jesus lived in the [geopolitical] West. And never mind that he found his greatness through the East.
The Catholics and Vatican have made the muddling worse because they tried to further universalize (catholic just means "universal") the religion taking it further and further from its roots to set it apart as "the greatest story ever told."
If it's a great story -- and it is no accident that Roman Catholicism is the world's largest religion today -- it's because it "borrowed" so much of the story from so many other traditions. But the result is not a religion we can all get behind; it's a mess.
And we forget that this is the old Thor story. And who outside of early Buddhism has even heard of Sakka?
*NOTE: It's sad. We at Wisdom Quarterly are NOT Christians. And we don't mean to be, and we don't want to be. Yet we so often end up defending poor, misunderstood Rabbi Jesus (Issa) because his own religions (Mithraism, Judaism, Greek Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism) so distort his story and history. They try to make of him a be-all, end-all universal God. He touched divinity. He was not divinity. All humans, and we'll go further and say all beings, have access to divine potential. Temple priests would stand for a lot of things from a lot of nuts returning from India preaching goodwill. But the one thing they would not stand for is the same thing Christians today cannot stand -- the message that you are GOD, I am GOD, we are all GOD. There is nothing that we are not capable of, but even rebirth in heaven requires that one be "born again," not in any figurative sense. We're already holy, in a sense; we just need to polish off the mud from the diamond as Hinduism teaches. But the heavens are literal as well as figurative, and if one should wish for rebirth there, one will surely have to leave things behind here. Leave it behind. And we must all stop fighting. The Buddha teaches peace. And if there were ever two teachers who would get along better than Sid and Jess, we have yet to meet them. The Buddha was not a Christian. But as it turns out, as the BBC has documented, Jesus may well have been a Buddhist monk at one time. Jews keep coming to India, fascinated by the same Mahayana-Tibetan flair that so fascinated the yogi Jesus. It's hardly a coincidence because Judaism itself is rooted in Vedic Brahmanism and Buddhism. And it becomes complete, rather than just a set of distinctive cultural practices devoid of spiritual completeness, when one returns.
