16 thoughts on “The Kouretes And The Rudras”

1. Pingback: The Crows of Juno | arya-akasha

2. Thank you. It was very enlightening and useful. Linked this in my blog, if you don’t mind.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • Glad to hear ! Both that the article did what it was meant to, and that you’ve put a link to it up where it might facilitate others to happen upon it.

     Of course, the nature and specific focus of said article meant an array of components to the complex underpinning the Kouretes (et al.) were left (reluctantly) unremarked and/or underremarked upon therein.

     Fortunately, a few weeks later I found myself writing an article whose subject turned out to basically require the involvement (and therefore explication) of a substantive tranche of what hadn’t wound up managing to find a place in the earlier article.

     If it’s of interest, you can find that here – https://aryaakasha.com/2025/11/01/the-crows-of-juno/

     In any case, thank you once more for the kind words and posting the link.

     [-C.A.R]

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply

     • Thank you. Indeed the Kourete subject is hard due to its obscurity and lack of clarity in sources, but you still did a good job drawing all the references, and comparing them with rigvedic sources and other philosophical/theological texts. Indeed there is a connection there, and most surprisingly, in the function that priests seem to take as Kouretes/Maruts. Yesterday I’ve searching about theurgic practices, and indeed, on one hand, some theurgic formulas chanted by the hierophant seem to function as a means to ascend the metaphysical ladder up to the Intellectual realm of Kronos, where the Kouretes are ranked, and on the other, your intuitions from RV which point to a spiritual state when the Brahmins becomes like the Maruts themselves. But does that mean that the Kouretes exist spiritually, like a monad, and at the same time pervading the other lower worlds as logoi, sounds and vibrations by analogy, which the priest can climb to spiritually, or that the priest merely takes a similar analogical function in the phsyical world? Either way, the lunar sphere in the Phsyical Kosmos is coric (kouretic), or korybantic like the Hypercosmic triad of Artemis/Persephone/Athena, usually conflated or subsumed into one Hekatic monad, and the moon being the animating aspect of corporeality and presiding over the vegetative souls (in body), is thus equated with Soul (fallen into generation), which might be the starting point of the priest as the master and conductor of the body? Sorry if I get confusing.

       LikeLike

     • As applies your question – “But does that mean that the Kouretes exist spiritually, like a monad, and at the same time pervading the other lower worlds as logoi, sounds and vibrations by analogy, which the priest can climb to spiritually, or that the priest merely takes a similar analogical function in the phsyical world? ”

       There are several levels to the answer.

       i) Some humans become Maruts (this is actually one of the other elements that I didn’t manage to get into the thus-far published work – it’s something drawn from Sayana’s RV commentary and basically directly correlates to, to put it in Norse terms, the manner in which particular great souls who do epic things upon the battlefield => Einherjar … except not so ‘limited’ in focus to that martial dimension, so to speak).

       ii) Some humans become, so to speak, ‘vehicles for’ or ’embodiments’ or ‘bearers’ (even ‘incarnations’) is close enough in terminology – and, as it happens, the Rudraganika clade would be an excellent exemplar [see writeup here – https://www.academia.edu/92411413/The_Rudraga%E1%B9%87ik%C4%81s_A_Radical_Revaluation also, see much larger overview of comparanda &c. here – https://aryaakasha.com/2022/03/08/rudraganika-a-study-in-eternal-return-as-manifested-through-the-sky-fathers-female-retinue-across-the-indo-european-world/ ] ; this is on a … how to say – this is broader in scope than just in a (formal, specific) ritual context, particularly; and, indeed, for particular Roudran devotees – we’re regarded as ‘Rudras come down from Rudraloka’.

       iii) Ritual operators / functionaries will, in various cases, ‘step into the role’ of x deity or deities [&c.] within the ‘re-enactment’ of the Rite. Now, I hvae a whole massive thing that I’ve not managed to pull together into a publishable form involving the situation of Quirinus – and the manner in which when Janus is being invoked, you’ve got Roman Consuls (would have been Kings earlier iirc), basically taking on the mantle of Quirinus (literally, there’s a garment involved and such) to do the thing. We have ‘x priest steps into role of Agni’. This – if it is, indeed, a metaphysically active operative undertaking, is not ‘acting’, and would be viewed as somewhere between ‘harmonization’, and the aforementioned ‘taking on the mantle of’ with, potentially an ’embodying’ : or, acting as ‘conduit for’. The strength of this being contingent upon a number of things like the nature of the rite, how well it’s being performed, personal quality/ies of the operator, etc. (one that springs to mind is lineage/ancestry)

       As applies iii) – it *can* be viewed in sidereal terms as “the priest merely takes a similar analogical function in the physical world” (esp. as function of a priest – analogous to the God that had acted as such ‘foundationally’, and in emulation of what was done then by They) … but obviously at greater potency there *should* be a ‘ghost within the machine’, so to speak.

       What is also necessary to introduce, i think, is the concept of the ‘Mesocosm’. You’ve heard of the Microcosm (for our purposes – “Down Here”), and the Macrocosm (“Up There” is part of it … the universe at large would be broader in sense for it, obviously). The Mesocosm is the space which affords those of the microcosm to interface with and effect at the macrocosmic level .

       An array of ritual conceptry is basically the undertakings via which such a ‘Mesocosmic Space’ can be ‘constructed’, brought into resonance (and with what/where/’when’ – in terms of supernal context), and made actively operational – and then, of course, what to be doing therein.

       But yes, there is also iv) – Maruts [&c.] existing (‘a-priori’ ?), not simply as something which humans imitate, emulate, or elevate to.

       [-C.A.R.]

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Wow, even though I touch superficially on some ideas, this is way out of my league, and forgive me if I can can’t keep up with vedic knowledge, it’s not my area, although I see many connections superficially. Recently I came to know about the Carmen Arval when I was searching for the connection between Lares and Kouretes, and lo, another example of priests addressing divine attendants. The first lines shouting out loud (or roaring) to awake someone up, then addressing Mars as the propeler (upwards?), and at the end, “address (Mars) ye all the Half-Gods” three times. These half-gods supposedly are Romulus and Remus, sons of Mars, who suckle on Lupina inside a cave, like Zeus on Amalthea. Romulus founds Rome, and withdraws from the scene like fay into the Siddhe, becoming an ancestor, a Lar perhaps? But either way, there are offspring between gods and mortals, who somehow seem to mediate between the two, or who can do that if propitiated. Lares are also depicted in pairs in paintings surrounding a genius (the third missing half-god?), perhaps the missing link where the priest (mortal) fits in as the third Lar/Kourete. Well, there’s enough food for thought and research here, and I am just a mortal with limited powers :). Unless… the general idea is already layed out, and the rest must be, and can be, accomplished personally.

       LikeLike

     • I do apologize ; I was trying to keep things as ‘relatively light’ as possible in terms of Vedic (or, for that matter, Tantric &c.) operational elements etc.; and figured that the familiarity of the Classical comparanda directly alongside would mitigate things feeling too overwhelming.

       As applies “Half-Gods” in the Carmen Arvale … the “Half-Gods”, would be somebody’s rendering for “Semunis” / “Simunis” – generally taken as “Semones”.

       Now, there are two things to be said of this rather enigmatic designation.

       The first, is that on the face of it, the likely linguistic extrapolation for ‘Semones’ – as Woodard phrases it … “The identity of the Semones is commonly intuited from their name’s supposed etymon, semina ‘seeds’.”

       Which is rather as we ought anticipate, alongside Mars – Mars had a rather significant Agricultural purview, after all. Hence, the Semones, the Lares, and Mars, being invoked in the relevant context.

       The second, however, goes more toward what the translation you’ve got there has phrased these Semones as – “Half-Gods”.

       Martianus Capella [whom it would appear you’re alraedy familiar with], in his De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii [II 155] has the following: “Hic igitur Lares, hic post membrorum nexum degunt animae pruriores, quae plerumque, si meritorum excellentia subuehantur, etiam circulum solis ac flammantia saepta transiliunt. Dehinc a lunari circulo usque in terram quicquid interpatet interstitii proprii partitione discernitur, et ab orbe lunari interfusa medietas disparatur. Sed superior portio eos [sicut conspicis] claudit, quos hemitheos dicunt quosque latine Semones aut Semideos conuenit memorare. Hi animas caelestes gerunt sacrasque mentes atque sub humana effigie in totius mundi commoda procreantur, […]”

       Which, in Stahl, Johnson, & Burge’s translation: ” Here, then, the Lares live; here, after their union with their bodies, live those purer spirits who, if they are borne aloft by outstanding merits, often even leap beyond the flaming ramparts and the orbit of the Sun. There is a space between earth and moon, and this space is itself divided into partitions, but the upper section contains those whom they call demigods and who are generally known in Latin as Semones or Semidei. These have celestial souls and godlike minds and are born in human form for the good of the whole world.”

       One might think instantly of the lines from the ShivaDharmaShastra:

       ye ’rcayanti sadā rudraṃ na te prakṛtimānuṣāḥ |
       rudralokāt paribhraṣṭās te rudrā nātra saṃśayaḥ ∥

       “They who always worship Rudra, they are no ordinary men. They are Rudras who have come down from Rudraloka. There is no doubt about this.”
       [ŚiDhŚ 1.16 & 1.24 – Nina Mirnig translation]

       But to return to our late Roman text above … the Greek word, “Hemitheos”, has found itself followed up by a Latin correlate – “Semideos”. Which isn’t a particularly common term, although does show up elsewhere – most notably in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, wherein (on one occasion at least – at I 192 – it’s a term encountered in amidst, basically, Nymphs, Satyrs &c. – “Sunt mihi semidei, sunt rustica numina, nymphae / faunique satyrique et monticolae silvani”).

       Now, what should be observed here is that there are two (in fact somewhat more than two) senses to , so to speak, “Half-Divine” (or, if you like, “Demigod”) … and we are frequently, here in Modernity, prone to expecting that the sense of a thing as it’s prevalently used today is likewise the immediate interpretation which would have been likewise the straightforward default in antiquity.

       Hence, if somebody says “Half-God(s)”, or “Demigod(s)”, we instantly take it as we would if somebody used such a term in … probably pop-culture, actually, today. That is to say – a figure who is ‘half-divine’ in the sense of being of mixed parentage, one human and one God .. and therefore, yes, (likely) being rather greater in whatever way as compared to a (full) human, as a simple matter of bloodline. We instantly think of Herakles / Hercules and His fabulous strength. Or, as you have done, one might have Romulus & Remus spring to mind.

       However, here’s the thing.

       Apart from the fact that the underlying IE figures which are what Herakles and Romulus & Remus are ‘expressions’ of … are not ‘demigods’ in this manner

       (Indra & Thor , Herakles’ correlates in Vedic & Eddic mythoi, are *fully* divine, as is Their parentage… interestingly, there actually appears to have been a Greek tradition along these lines, as well – Ptolemy Hephaestion, as recounted in Photius’ Bibliotheca [190 20], refers to “the hymn which is chanted at Thebes in honour of Herakles and where He is called Son of Zeus and Hera”; amusingly, thus affording an entirely unintentional shred of underpinning ‘legitimacy’ to the 90s Disney ‘Hercules’ film’s “family-friendly” bowdlerization of .. well you know. [Herakles / Hercules, meanwhile – likely for reasons that I shall explicate in a moment – is instead presented as having to undergo an Apotheosis in order to become a God proper … featuring a rather key element, but I am getting ahead of myself]

       Meanwhile, Romulus & Remus – see Manu & Yama [Remus, more archaically, was ‘Iemus’ , it’s a cognate of ‘Yama’, indeed .. also, in the *older* version of the myth, as preserved somewhat in Ennius – Romulus doesn’t kill Remus, but rather Remus kills *himself* in a fashion that would recall Yama’s deed], Who are quite comfortably of divine parentage on both sides even as they are the first men (well, ‘First Man’, and ‘First ‘Mortal’, you might say’ .. with the latter nevertheless also being a God) : or for that matter , the Sæmingr [described as ‘skattfœri’ – we anticipate a figurative labelling of a priest] famously Son of Odin & Skaði [i.e. the Sky Father, and – well, Kali would be the Hindu correlate as applies this Aspect of His Wife] whom we also suspect to fit the pertinent typology of First Man [indeed – observe the way ‘Scandinavian’, ‘Scandinavia’ has likely developed from ‘Skaði’] [for context, he’s referenced in the Heimskringla (via Sturluson’s incorporation of and annotation upon the verse of Eyvindr Skáldaspillir) as the mythic forebear of Jarl Haakon Sigurdsson] ; also c.f. the Argive Phoroneus – the parentage of whom , generally speaking, tends to be ‘above-human’ on both sides (various versions abound, but basically, a River God, and what’s presented as an Oceanid – whether ‘Melia’ [i.e. ‘Ash Tree / Spear’] , or Argia [‘Bright’ would be a good translation, i suspect] … one is instantly reminded of *Father* Tiber [and c.f. as well, the Faliscan First Man, Halese, being hailed by them as Son of Neptune]; oh, and note the name of Romulus & Remus’ mother – *Rhea* Silvia … the former being a theonymic of obvious pertinence, the latter’s ‘Forest’ dimension likewise being salient]

       ( . I also have a skein of thing about yon Mother Goddess taking on a Wolf Form [one thinks of Leto in such a presentation] … as a variant of the more prominently known mythic episode featuring Her taking on Horse Form or an Avian identity (matching, of course, the Sky Father also as such – He is a Wolf [other than what is attested viz. Rudra & Odin, Zeus Lykaios springs to mind, and, of course, the Sirius connexion ; and it is well that Aelian [in his De Natura Animalium] attests for us that the Wolf is the “Beloved of the Sun” [one remembers the Vedic mention also for the Sun as Wolf , attested in the work of Yaska in his Nirukta]) and connected to this, giving birth (ref. Surya => Saranyu / Chhaya [Horses] ; Poseidon => Demeter (Erinys / Melania) [Horses]; Zeus => Nemesis [Swan & Goose, respectively … also c.f. Zeus as Cuckoo => Hera], inter alia , but … one massive digression at a time – other htan to observe that in each instance, it is a ‘Shadowy’ [& Wrathful – Order-Upholding] Aspect of Her – Chhaya, the Black Demeter, Kali [that one’s a bit inferential but we *do* have the relevant man and woman descend from tree [like Melia, Yggdrasil / Askr + Embla ] in relation to Her in the relevant episode], Nemesis, Leto [an alternate ‘Night’ Form of Hera per Plutarch’s attestation in a fragment of his Moralia that has come down to us thanks to the inveterate Christian propagandist , Eusebius; ref. also ‘Leda’ , and both ‘Leto’ and ‘Leda’ relative to the relevant Lycian ‘Lada’, also c.f. ‘Lethe’ .. i digress again], and as aforementioned – Skaði (same root as ‘Shadow’ ) ) … )

       … Sorry, got a bit side-tracked there.

       What I’d *meant* to say is that the labelling of ‘Half-God’ , as we can see, actually has a rather different .. range of ambits than the modern-familiar ‘Percy Jackson’ kind.

       The most obvious is basically something along the lines of , i suppose one might say ‘para-Divine’ : that is, categorized as above human , and having linkage (and likely fealty) to the Gods proper , as applies characterization & characteristics, but not being on the level of a Deity proper. ‘Half-way-up’, one might say. And one can rather readily populate this space with exemplars drawn from a variety of IE mythic spheres, no doubt.

       I would suggest that the Semones referred to in the Arval Hymnal you had brought up, would be ‘Half-Divine’ in this sense. And not least bceause the deliberately rather non-specifying nature of the categorization, means it is therefore a useful ‘catchall’ term for an array of potentially overlapping clades of being and/or differing ways to refer to what was originally basically *a* clade but which has wound up with various of its hailings being ‘pop-mythologized’ as feeling like it refers to another group.

       The obvious exemplar for both of these being, of course, what we encounter within another inveterate Christian propagandist’s attempted ‘gotcha’ – in this case, Arnobius’ Adversus Nationes’ [III 41] :

       “[…] In different parts of his writings, Nigidius speaks of them now as the guardians of houses and dwellings; now as the Curetes, who are said to have once concealed, by the clashing of cymbals, the infantile cries of Jupiter; now the five Digiti Samothracii, who, the Greeks tell us, were named Idæi Dactyli. Varro, with like hesitation, says at one time that they are the Manes, and therefore the mother of the Lares was named Mania; at another time, again, he maintains that they are gods of the air, and are termed heroes; at another, following the opinion of the ancients, he says that the Lares are ghosts, as it were a kind of tutelary demon, spirits of dead men.”
       [Bryce & Campbell translation]

       Basically, there’s … an awareness of various of these terms , at least as they can be and are used in a salient context , actually linking together in terms of what (or, rather, Who’s) being referred to [as a comparative example – consider the manner in which the Maruts are also labelled as ‘Rudras’, ‘Ṛbhukṣaṇs’, ‘Maryas’, ‘Yuvānas’ (‘Youths’), ‘Sons of Rudra / Dyaus’ (“rudrasya sūnavo divo”), as ‘Vayaśas’ [i.e. ‘birds’, more specifically, perhaps, Corvids] [RV V 41 13], and as Ādityas [RV X 77] .. no doubt inter *Many* alia. And, because I haven’t forgotten your caveat concerning not yet possessing a comfortable degree of familiarity with the depths of Vedic arcana … basically, if somebody’s (only) acquainted with the more ‘free-standing’ utilization for several of those labellings (e.g. they hear “Ādityas” , and think “Ah! Yes, the set of Eight / Twelve Gods known by that name ! But Maruts aren’t part of that!” – rather than noting that Āditya is “Of Aditi”, esp. *Child* of Aditi , with this being both the rationale to why said Eight Ādityas are called such … as well as being very much correct to describe the Maruts, Who are likewise Sons of Aditi ), well, you see how confusion and artificial ‘speciation’ could take flight and lead to both a certain level of the eventual ‘pop-mythology’, and then academics most of two millennia later attempting to insist that, say, ‘Rudras’ and ‘Maruts’ ought be two different / distinct clades .. i am digressing again].

       Meanwhile, the *other* saliency that we can observe iin Martianus Capella’s writeup .. is this: ” but the upper section contains those whom they call demigods and who are generally known in Latin as Semones or Semidei. These have celestial souls and godlike minds and are born in human form for the good of the whole world.”

       Or, phrased another way … instead of indicating ‘Half Human, Half God’ individuals who are ‘between’ those two sets due to having contributions of parentage (and therefore, contributions of ‘essence’ ? ‘nature-of-being’ ? viz. how the genes we inherit from our (human) parents make us, likewise, biologically human … although I suspect that where one parent is a Deity, while there may indeed potentially be a [literal] genetic dimension [for example, where the child’s hair bears a significant resemblance to the divine parent’s corresponding trait, and with this then becoming a ‘family feature’ subsequently also passed on to the child’s own descendants etc.], the obvious prospect that ‘Divinity’ is not a matter of DNA strands correspondingly anticipates that there ought be other [assumedly metaphysical] vectors/components to ) – from, and therefore ‘of’ these two clades … it can also refer to another clade entirely (albeit one which is linked to one of these, it would seem – and one is also cognizant of the attestation in the Orphic Hymn to Hera, of Her as Mother of ὄμβρος (Ombros) … ) .

       This situation of, as we have outlined elsewhere, Maruts as Sons of Rudra & Aditi, and the correlate expressions found elsewhere (note: not in this case the *adoptive* Sons of …) – is also, to my mind, likely to be at least part of what was going on with the reference to *Heroes* in that list from Arnobius. Sons of Hera, you see.

       Of course, at this point, it must be acknowledged the *other* seeming application for the ‘Demigod’ sphere of labelling & nomenclature. That being the one wherein – a human is ‘elevated’ in some manner to being … well, a bearer of a divine essence. This is exactly what is basically entailed where we encounter “Ardhadeva” in-use in its RigVedic context, as we have sought to explore elsewhere [for instance – https://aryaakasha.com/2022/06/08/on-wyrd-women-dwelling-in-waters-handing-out-swords-as-the-supernal-basedness-for-a-system-of-government-part-2-the-coronation-of-the-demigod-king-hercules-indra-varuna-and-those-render/
       ] (to briefly sum it up : King Trasadasyu is invested with essences of Indra & Varuna as part of his coronation, it would seem; and certainly, becoming an ‘adoptive Son of Aditi’). Now, of course, this brings us back to both the position of an ’empowered war-leader’ … which is what we seem to observe when ti comes to the March-ish war-rites paradigm [in Roman terms, the aforementioned situation viz. Quirinus ; in Hindu terms – becoming as Skanda, i think]; but also for what we appear to have in evidence for a king.

       As applies what I had earlier related viz. Herakles / Hercules – it seems that in a similar fashion to how we have a human ruler becoming ‘as Indra’ … well, at some point something like this has become a bit ‘confused’ / conflated in the Classical sphere. That is to say – the *fully divine* God , the Striker/Thunderer Son of the Sky Father, Who is ‘providing’ the … how to say – the place ? the ‘masque’ ? to ‘step into’ … this has, in the *mythology* become partially overwritten by the ritualine dimension wherein a mortal man is granted the divine investiture : it is what we find in the Classical mythology wherein Herakles’ proper apotheosis is accomplished via His being finally adopted (and, indeed, ‘nurtured’ – breastfed) by that Divine Mother, Hera / Juno.

       Now, of course, it is certainly possible to suggest a few things with relation to various of the elements but briefly parsed in the above. And I’m sure it shall come as no surprise to find that in various articles in recent years, I’ve sought to do exactly that. [ here’s one – https://aryaakasha.com/2024/08/14/on-the-symbolism-of-the-gigantes-gigantomachy-part-one-he-shall-tread/ ]

       There’s also an ongoing array of comment (significant of it yet unpublished) in terms of the investiture of what makes a hero ‘as Sirius’ [ref. the obvious bits of the Iliad – viz. Diomedes, and also Achilles … but also note the occurrence in the Argonautica(s) for Jason], and comparative comparanda in Hindu terms.

       I also have a rather … extensive suite of draft material that I keep meaning to actually polish up and finish to an acceptable standard, concerning the First Man (First Priest / First King) situation, and with especial attention to the Roman exemplar(s) [see, for instance, Modius Fabidius of Cures [ref. Dionysius of Halicarnassus II 48 viz. , as Clay’s translation puts it: “who, being arrived at manhood, had not a human but a divine form and was renowned above all others for his warlike deeds” (“ὃς ἀνδρωθεὶς μορφήν τε οὐ κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον ἀλλὰ δαιμόνιον ἴσχει, καὶ τὰ πολέμια πάντων γίνεται λαμπρότατος:”)].

       But one thing at a time.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Thank you. There are indeed more nuances that make it difficult to pinpoint the exact nature or place of demigods, and I’ll have to review these sources you’ve provided before anything else.

       LikeLike

3. And yes, I had already read the article about Juno during my Juno obsession, which will come back I bet 🙂 since to understand a god, we have to understand other gods in tandem.

   LikeLike

   Reply

4. About Hercules (and Sancus) being compared to Indra – maybe on the sublunary sphere – since Indra is a function, like demiurgy, which there are several (celestial, marine, terrestrial), one example being the sublunary (terrestrial) demiurge. That could explain why Sancus was worshipped in open air – the cosmos – while other gods were worshipped in shrines, or in temples: the more removed they are from sight, the more occult they are, i.e., beyond the world, whereas “in open air” belongs to cosmic deities, “of this world”. The connection of Semones with Lares or Manes I don’t understand, but disembodied souls both in hinduism and neoplatonism dwell between the Earth and Moon (Antariksha), which would explain how some ancestors could emulate the functions of Indra if propitiated (rain, thunder), since they have a material “affinity”, and a psychic one as well. The desciption of Semones by Martianus resembles more the Siddhas, also semi-divine, who only (re)incarnate if humanity is in need of guidance, although Siddhas as Liberated Beings would be above the world ,and not between the Earth and Moon, as Martianus places the Semones. unless by Earth is meant the cosmos and by Moon the hypercosmos, I have no idea. I already have my share of confusion about the lokas and correspondences. But either way, liberated or not, ancestors have to go somewhere after death. If they assume certain functions, that tells that there is an analogy, as above, so below. Sublunary air is Leto or Cadmus, psychic Air is Hera, celestial fire is Zeus, sublunary fire is Semele or Asclepius, who, by “stealing” Zeus’ Power, are subsumed into Him, i.e., return to their source in Zeus, which is equivalent to: if a soul, or a mortal becomes godlike, with godlike powers, siddhis or such, what place does it have here? It belongs to another sphere. But still the law of correspondence must allow them to manifest here, or at least, to drop a staircase by which we can meet with halfway.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • There are quite a few things to be said here, as you shall likely anticipate. And I do apologize for taking a few days to reply.

     As applies Sancus, my intimiation would be that it is a situation akin to why temples to Jupiter were supposed to have an oculus or like aperature to be open to the sky. Because the swearing of oaths axiomatically entails a *witness* for them. And whilst an oath-fire is an attested element (see, for instance, the remarks we have even from Classical sources concerning that first altar then immortalized as the Altar constellation) – one can accomplish similar effect with that All-Seeing Eye … i.e. the Sun. This, we have repeated attestations for as an Eye of the Sky Father, and more  to the point, where one can find – intriguingly enough – basically a ‘Golden Throne’ where said God and His Wife, Who is Order/Law rather directly, are to be found. 

     It should be noted that the construction of temples – rather than the utilization of ‘ritual/sacred enclosures’ – is a relatively ‘recent’ development ; and that the Romans, conservative (or at least, attempting fragmentarily to be) as they were, maintained a rather active memory of such. The more important the thing, the more likely something a bit different to a ‘temple’, i would say, would likely be involved. 

     LikeLike

     Reply

   • As applies what has been said viz. – “since Indra is a function, like demiurgy, which there are several (celestial, marine, terrestrial),” , “Indra as a function” is a rather later thing , and somewhat of a misinterpretation. The most usual way it would turn up would be “the Indra of a particular [cycle of creation]” (although one *does* find “Indra’ utilized in a ‘comparative’ sense as another name for a chief, in epics &c. if memory serves). But that is not what you are getting at. 

     Instead, it would be something along the lines of Zeus Triophthalmos – viz. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades (although it should be noted that there’s … a shift of sorts that has taken place viz. Zeus Khthonios => Zeus *Kata*Khthonios).

     To quote from something I’d written / compiled together awhile back:

     “An interesting point about the Pausanias passage which you have taken issue with [II 25 3-4] concerns the following:

     “The reason for its three eyes one might infer to be this. That Zeus is king in heaven is a saying common to all men. As for him who is said to rule under the earth, there is a verse of Homer which calls him, too, Zeus:—

     “Zeus of the Underworld, and the august Persephonea.

     The god in the sea, also, is called Zeus by Aeschylus, the son of Euphorion. So whoever made the image made it with three eyes, as signifying that this same god rules in all the three “allotments” of the Universe, as they are called.”
     [Jones & Ormerod translation]

     The former – the remark of Homer, viz. “Ζεὺς καταχθόνιος” – is at Iliad IX 457; the latter, the wording of Aeschylus, I have not yet tracked down to my own satisfaction.

     There is quite the constellation for these ‘Zeus of the Underworld’ occurrences (although the Homeric epithet, καταχθόνιος, is rather intriguing precisely because the ‘Kata-” is … rather ‘extra’; the opposite of “over and above” our expectations, of course, because it’s literally going in the opposite direction, but you see what I mean. It assumedly may have something to do with the specific context for the invocation here – featuring the Erinyes …] ; the scholar Walter Leaf having the following to say upon the subject:

     “Ζεὺς καταχθόνιος is a unique title in H., but we have “Ζεὺς χθόνιος” in Hesiod Opp. 465, where he is coupled with Demeter, and Soph. O. C. 1606; and there was a cult of him in Corinth (Paus.ii. 2. 8) and Mykonos. Compare the phrases “Ζεὺς ἄλλος” and “τὸν πολυξενώτατον Ζῆνα τῶν κεκμηκότων”, quoted from Aischylos. “Ζεὺς χθόνιος” is a favourite name in the Orphic poems and Nonnos. The name seems to imply a different set of myths from that general in H. — a theogony in which one Zeus is the god of heaven, earth, and underworld alike, and is worshipped in all these different aspects (cf. Paus. loc. cit.), instead of being differentiated into three gods.”

     I would say that he is basically ‘on the money’ with that one.

     For interest’s sake, the Hesiod reads in the Evelyn-White translation as the following:

     “Pray to Zeus of the Earth and to pure Demeter to make Demeter’s holy grain sound and heavy, when first you begin ploughing, when you hold in your hand the end of the plough-tail and bring down your stick on the backs of the oxen as they draw on the pole-bar by the yoke-straps. Let a slave follow a little behind with a mattock and make trouble for the birds by hiding the seed; for good management is the best for mortal men as bad management is the worst. In this way your corn-ears will bow to the ground with fullness if the Olympian himself gives a good result at the last, […]”

     As we can see, the same ‘Zeus Chthonios’ hailing which is often taken to refer to Hades, here is in reference to an ‘Olympian’; and, more to the point, we find in confederation with Demeter. The reason why this is of particular interest to us concerns that much-earlier aforementioned mythic pairing of Poseidon and Demeter … via way of the Kashmiri iteration of what is evidently the same myth, which, of course, features Shiva (and, interestingly enough, agriculture; and detailings pertaining also to Hades – I have elaborated upon it at some length elsewhere). Sir Richard C. Jebb’s take upon the phenomenon is that “The Zeus Chthonios was a benevolent Pluto, associated with Demeter in the prayers of the husbandman […]”.

     Which is interesting because what he was commenting upon at that point concerned the afore-cited Sophocles (‘Oedipus at Colonus’) – wherein one hears of the “thunder” (“κτύπησε”) which was “sent forth” by “Zeus of the Underworld” (” Ζεὺς χθόνιος”); and we can be fairly sure that this is an Underworld (or, at least, a ‘Deathly’) Zeus meant via the context – precisely because of what is going on at those points within the play’s narrative (it’s Oedipus basically being summoned into the afterlife) … albeit with a no doubt entirely deliberate ambiguity intended, considering that “It was no fiery thunderbolt of the God that removed him, nor any rising of whirlwind from the sea; it was either an escort from the Gods, or else the dark world of the dead kindly split open to receive him.” [Jebb translation]

     Timothy Gantz in his ‘Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources’ runs through several examples of this evident phenomenon and basically concludes that “it appears that at times Zeus and Hades represented simply different facets of a single extended divine power.” And I am sure that were I so inclined I could dig up a bunch of other academics making the similar observation – although it is not usually my way to rely upon modern scholarly takes so heavily, in preference to my own (often better-informed as applies the comparative IE sphere than single-culture specialists) renderings.”
     [ https://aryaakasha.com/2022/08/17/dyaus-inter-alia-on-the-sky-fathers-major-theonym-and-the-relative-in-frequency-of-its-occurrence-across-various-indo-european-spheres/ ]

     And, from another article of mine:

     “We ought also, perhaps, make brief mention for the attestation found at VS XVI 57 / TS IV 5 11 c (Sri Rudram XI 3) for the Rudras hailed as Śarvas (‘The Injurers’ or ‘The Archers’) Who are said to be “adhaḥ kṣamācarāḥ”, that is : ‘In, or Under the Earth’. With ‘Kṣam’ (क्षम्), as it should happen, proving a fairly direct linguistic cognate for Ancient Greek ‘Chthon’ (‘χθών’), we might therefore feasibly infer that the locale Under such ought correspondingly prove functionally correlate for the ‘καταχθόνιος’ (‘KataChthonios’ -i.e. ‘Under Ground’) that we encounter as an archaic Hellenic designation for the Underworld (viz. “Ζεὺς καταχθόνιος” (‘Zeus KataChthonios’) in reference to Hades at Iliad IX 457).

     These are joined within the immediately adjacent lines of the Yajurvedic liturgy by both the Rudras hailed as ‘Bhavas’ (“Bhavā”) situated ‘midst “mahaty arṇave ntarikṣe”, the ‘Great Ocean of the Mid-Atmosphere’ [VS XVI 55 / TS IV 5 11 b]; and the Rudras of blue-black neck and white throat (“nīlagrīvāḥ śitikaṇṭhā”) Dwelling within the (Bright) Heaven-Sky (“Divam”) [VS XVI 56 / TS IV 5 11 d]. (The ‘Bhavas’ situation would concord with that at SBr VI 1 3 15, wherein Rudra is named ‘Bhava’ and stated to be Parjanya and linked to Rain-Clouds – with this also providing the rationale for the ‘Bhava’ theonymic, building from the essential inception of life, of ‘being’ (as a verb), from such)

     As you may have noticed – the resultant set of three realms correlates exactly with one of the two more prevalent Classical speciations for the Indo-European Tripartite Cosmos model. That being, obviously, the iteration featuring the ‘Under-World’ (‘KataChthonios’ – which is ‘Unseen’, i.e. ‘Haides’) rather than the ‘Earth’ (‘Gaia’), along with the ‘Heaven’ (‘Ouranos’), ‘Sea’ (‘Thalassa’) common to both variations.

     The most prominent occurrence for this schema, of course, being through both the ‘personas’ and dominions of Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon – although perhaps the more ‘resonant’, from the point of view of the Vedic comparanda, would be the archaic figure of Zeus Triophthalmos (‘Zeus the Three-Eyed’). Rudra is, after all, Dyaus – and so the fact that both Rudra (Dyaus) and Zeus are ‘Three-Eyed’ (‘Tryambaka’, to utilize His major Vedic hailing as such) is as we ought anticipate.

     In Hindu reckoning, the ‘Three Eyes’ in question are the Three ‘Radiances’ of Sun , Moon, and Fire (effectively correlate to the ‘usual’ TriLoka of ‘Heaven’, ‘Mid-Atmosphere,’ and ‘Upon-Earth’, respectively).

     As both the Sun and Moon find attestation as Eyes of Zeus, it is not implausible that this rationale may also have found co-expressive resonancy amidst the Mediterranean IE once upon a time, as well. However the rationale – and, more to our point, the Three-Realm rubric – presented by Pausanias [II 24 3-4] for the ‘Triophthalmos’ epithet and associated iconography is somewhat different. Insofar as he ascribes it to Zeus’ Triple-Dominion over the planes of ‘Heaven’, ‘Under-the-Earth’, and the ‘Sea’ – a regency which he attests via quotes from Homer and Aeschylus (viz. “Ζεύς τε καταχθόνιος καὶ ἐπαινὴ Περσεφόνεια”; “Δία καὶ τὸν ἐν θαλάσσῃ”) evincing the evidently canonically acceptable usage for ‘Zeus’ appended by pertinent realm-designator to speak of the Divine Ruler amidst Underworld or Sea, respectively.

     Certainly, where we delve into the Roman sphere, we readily encounter the idea for Jupiter in other ‘Guises’; underpinning connexions which hint at now-largely-forgotten unities. Summanus, for instance, the famed ‘Jupiter By Night’, identified with Pluto via Martianus Capella [De Nuptiis, II 164] and situated ‘midst the Manes – the syzygy of Night’s Sky and the Spirits of the Dead being exactly as we’d anticipate in light of Vedic comparanda (as detailed within previous suites of exploration). Speaking of which …

     Our concept for the ‘Under-World’ being, so to speak, ‘Heaven By Night’ (and thereby ‘Under-the-World’ by Day), may perhaps find additional attestation within the aforementioned Yajurvedic detailing. As it should happen, that distinguishing characteristic for the Rudras of Heaven of ‘blue-black neck and white throat’ (“nīlagrīvāḥ śitikaṇṭhā”) is immediately co-occurrent amidst the Śarvas of the Under-World – and I do mean “immediately co-occurrent”, the relevant Sanskrit phrasing (“nīlagrīvāḥ śitikaṇṭhāḥ”) being directly repeated in literally the adjacent line [VS XVI 56 & 57 / TS IV 5 11 c & d]. Such a close and overt (indeed – obvious to the point of blatancy) resonance cannot be anything other than actively intended – and evidently designed to conjure within the mind the concept of ‘alternation’ for the colour (or, indeed, ‘illumination’ – ‘Light’ and ‘Dark’) descriptors involved, the relevant anatomical terms of ‘Kaṇṭha’ and ‘Grīvā’ connoting the ‘front’ and ‘back’ of the ‘neck’, respectively (and c.f. SBr II 3 1 6, etc. – that particular verse pertaining to a Sunrise as akin to a dark exterior being shed; read in the context of the Underworld transition of a Serpentine Form for pertinent Divinity at SBr IV 6 9, via way of the closely correlate situation recounted in Varro’s De Lingua Latina (V 68) … but more upon this in another piece).”

     LikeLike

     Reply

   • As applies – “but disembodied souls both in hinduism and neoplatonism dwell between the Earth and Moon (Antariksha), which would explain how some ancestors could emulate the functions of Indra if propitiated (rain, thunder), since they have a material “affinity””

     There are several points, again, to be made here. The first of which being that functions around rain and thunder are not something simply nor exclusively linked to Indra. One would, rather, likely be thinking of Parjanya – that Rudra-Form; of Ardra (Rudra, again), of Tishya / Pushya (Brihaspati … Rudra). [see comments herein – https://aryaakasha.com/2023/07/08/on-the-sky-father-as-dragon-destroyer/ ] Also, I’m aware that there’s a thing on wikipedia claiming Parjanya is Indra – this rather runs straight into the direct Shruti upon the matter having Rudra as Parjanya [ref. SBr VI 1 3 15]

     As applies where one is finding Pitṛs :

     “Meanwhile, if we look into the archaic Vedic contemplation for such things … what we find is that the Realm of Yama is, in fact, in seemingly the entirely opposite direction – “Parame Vyoman”, states RV X 14 8 : the ‘Highest Heaven / Air / Sky’, with this same verse also confirming the Pitṛs (‘[Fore-]Fathers’ – Ancestors, the ‘Ancestral Dead’) are to be encountered therein as well . And likewise, what we might term the ‘Meritorious Dead’ are repeatedly attested (for instance, RV I 125 5-6, RV I 164 5-6, RV X 107 2, etc.) to attain an ascendance to such Heavenly stationing (“Nākasya Pṛṣṭhe” per RV I 125 5, “Uccā Divi […] Asthur” at RV X 107 2, and “Paramam Padam” as the highest of Vishnu’s ‘Three Paces’ at RV I 154 6), in consequence of their worthy actions within this life ‘down here’ upon this Earth.

     (AV-S XVIII 2 48, as a point of interest, has the Heavenly Layer itself divided into three – the ‘Low Heaven’ (“Dyaur Avamā”) being ‘Watery’ (“Udanvatī”), the Middle (“Madhyamā”) being, per Whitney, “Full of Stars” (“Pīlumatīti” – as affirmed to contain such via Sāyaṇa, so the scholarly Nyāyaratnasiṃha attests for me), whilst the Third (“Tr̥tīyā”), which is the ‘Highest’ or ‘Fore-Heaven’ (“PraDyaur”), is likewise where the Pitṛs are to be found).

     What ‘gives the game away’, so to speak, as to what’s going on here and how to ‘reconcile’ it with the Under World afterlife of the later (chronologically) Hellenic view, concerns what various of those august souls are described as doing ‘up there’ within their celestial attainments.

     Shatapatha Brahmana VI 5 4 8 [Eggeling translation] features the following – “But, surely, these are the stars,—the women (jani) are indeed the stars, for these are the lights of those righteous men (jana) who go to the celestial world: it is by means of the stars that he thus bakes it.” RV X 68 11 has what I had earlier parsed as (to quote my own prior work): “the Pitrs (in the manner of Stars) adorn the Dark [veil of] Heaven [“Dyām”], the (Bright) Sky’s manifestation as Night, as a ‘Dusky’ / Dark Horse [“śyāvaṃ […] aśvaṃ “] with beautiful strings of Pearl [“kṛśanebhir”]” – which I had sought to link to Aditi, the Goddess Who is the Ruler of the Pitrs [SBr VIII 4 3 7]. RV X 14 8 (a key verse of probably the most prominent RigVedic Hymnal to pertain to Yama and His Realm, as well as the Pitṛs taking up resonance therein) has the departed soul attaining “parame vyoman” (‘highest sky’) enjoined to a “tanvā suvarcāḥ” – that is to say, a ‘body’ (or expression thereof, an emanation) of luminous, indeed ‘vigorous’, fiery or radiant character : you know, a star.

     As shall come as a surprise to precisely no-one (not least due to the referencing from RV X 68 11 immediately above), these ‘Stars’ should seem to come out most pointedly at Night – they are associated with the Darkness. As SBr II 1 3 1 [again, Eggeling translation] puts it: “The Day represents the Gods, and the Night represents the Fathers.” SBr XIII 8 4 7 has those returning to the village (the world – indeed, more directly, the city we might say, of the Living) reciting VS XXXV 14 (which, parsed by Eggeling): “From out of the gloom have we risen …”, with this explicated [again, Eggeling’s translation for the aforesaid SBr verse] as “from the gloom, the world of the Fathers, they now indeed approach the light, the sun.”

     And we should further make interested note for that detailing recounted later in SBr XIII 8 4 at verse twelve concerning the making of a ‘boundary’ (or, as Griffith’s translation for VS XXXV 15 has it, a “rampart”) – per Eggeling’s translation: “Having fetched a clod from the boundary, he deposits it (midway) between (the grave and the village), with (Vāj. S. XXXV, 15), ‘This I put up as a bulwark for the living, lest another of them should go unto that thing: may they live for a hundred plentiful harvests, and shut out death from themselves by a mountain!’–he thus makes this a boundary between the Fathers and the living, so as not to commingle; and therefore, indeed, the living and the Fathers are not seen together here.” This division, perhaps, resonating with that boundary erected by Romulus (i.e. Manu) about the archaic and Palatine (i.e. ‘walled’) hill-situated core of Rome (i.e. the ‘City of the Living’ – in contrast to the Remuria / Lemuria that was the ‘City of the Dead’ ruled over by Remus, in older iteration known as ‘Iemus’, i.e. Yama).”

     [ https://aryaakasha.com/2025/02/13/tri-loka-the-three-worlds-of-indo-european-cosmology-part-three-the-dead-among-the-stars/ ]

     [ Also see – https://aryaakasha.com/2025/08/01/tri-loka-the-three-worlds-of-indo-european-cosmology-part-four-amidst-the-glorious-ancestral-dead/ ]

     Where I am going with this, is that as applies the situation of the Moon … what we have in Vedic terms, if memory serves, is basically what’s going on ‘in the middle’ between ‘Up There’ and ‘Down Here’, acting as rather significant bridge (or, indeed, ‘ship’) to enable sendings, receivings, etc. : hence, in part, why the Amavasya is when we carry out our Pitr-propitiations. [and c.f. the notion of sailing across the ‘ocean’ to get to the Isles of the Blessed in Classical terms – the ocean here, of course, being the Mid-Atmosphere layer]

     Now, it seems that some later Classical commentators basically wound up with something along the lines of ‘associated with the Moon … because Night-Time’ , becoming instead ‘associated with the Moon, because Mid-Atmosphere layer’ ; also, alongside this, the phenomenon of encountering spirits / shades of the Dead … up in the Air [ref. Wild-Hunt, &c.] … because they’re coming ‘visiting’ … likewise serving to reinforce a linkage for “that’s where they’re from”, even if this seems to be a bit of an ‘uneasy’ thing, when one considers that the actual place they should be *from* … should be located in that Heaven layer [ref. situation of Yama-Loka – cross-ref. viz. Remus / Iemus => Remuria => Lemuria; ref. also, of course, Valhalla, for rather overt reasons, plus Freyja’s Folkvangr &c.] , which, of course, is basically subject to varying degrees to a parallel ‘shift’ to being located ‘under the World’ [which is whree it *should* be … *during the day-time* … but then becomes ‘geo-locked’, if you will, due to misapprehension as time goes on; and thus, “Underworld’, along the lines of that we think of in Greek/Roman terms.

     But yeah, Stars – well, ‘Ouranos’ would be where one would anticipate these.

     You can see some of the problems / development in the excerpts I’d quoted here:

     “We would also draw attention, as applies the Roman sphere, to relevant material collated via the Third of the ‘Vatican Mythographers’ [Mythographi Vaticani Mythographus Tertius], presented here in the Pepin translation:

     “Truly, among the philosophers there is a remarkable explanation of the return of souls. [They explain] how or why the souls of the guilty, according to some of them, just as of the innocent, return to the stars after they have been freed from the body. The souls do this so that they might either be presented with the greatest reward of eternal light as the wages of life, or they might be banished from these stars for deeds committed wickedly, or taken up, not to perish, but that they might be cast down. So also that same Vergil, not a stupid man, says: ‘‘Certainly, all things, now released, are returned and then brought back hither; there is no place for death, but alive, they fly up to join the number of stars and climb to the high heaven.’’ And Lucan says: ‘‘He made the innocent in life endure the lowest ether and gathered the souls to their eternal orbits.’’ […]

     […] Also, those whom prudence raises up, that is, ‘‘whom ardent virtue carries up to the stars.’’ And religious men, who are born of the gods, he says, for it follows that the offspring of the gods are open to religions.”
     [VI 17 & 20] [the citations for quotes therein are given as Virgil’s Georgics IV 227-229; Lucan IX 8-9; Virgil’s Aeneid VI 129-131]

     The Second Vatican Mythographer [II 24], meanwhile, speaks of the ‘Blessed Isles’ of Elysium [“Elisium est insule fortunate […]”] as referenced in Homer to have been ‘located by theologians’ [“secundum theologos”] in the vicinity of the ‘circle of the Moon’ [“circa lunarem circulum”], amidst supposed ‘purer air’ [“ubi aer est purior”] – this suite of description seemingly having been ‘borrowed’ from Maurus Servius Honoratus’ commentary upon Virgil’s Aeneid [V 735], and therefore quite fittingly also incorporating the “Aeris in campis” from a later Aeneid section [VI 887], which Connington (linking the situation also with the positive afterworld presented at Statius’ Silvae V 3 286) had declared to be “a general expression for the place of the dead, “the shadowy plains,” ‘aer’ probably including the notion of mist as well as of air.” One might also make mention for that famous hailing for Elysium per Aeneid VI 541, viz. – “solemque suum, sua sidera norunt”; that is to say, the place having its own Sun and knowing [“norunt”] [their] own Stars (Dryden’s translation, intriguingly, posits Suns – plural – rather than Sun, singular).

     The Third Mythographer [III 6 4] also makes reference to a perception for the ‘Underworld’ to begin in the Sky [“caelo infernum incipere”], and with this linked to the Elysian Fields [“quos apud inferos fabula constituit” – in the Underworld, as per myth, the text reminds us] as amidst the “circulum Jovis”. Which would certainly be in-line with our nascent anticipation.”
     [ https://aryaakasha.com/2025/02/13/tri-loka-the-three-worlds-of-indo-european-cosmology-part-three-the-dead-among-the-stars/ ]

     As a point of interest , Plutarch’s ‘ De Facie Quae In Orbe Luna Apparet’ also is useful as an illustration of the … how you say … clearly there’s some ‘right conceptry’ that he was familiar with, but it’s become a bit ‘hazy’. Anyway:

     “So much for the Moon’s substance. As to Her breadth or magnitude, it is not what the geometers say but many times greater. She measures off the earth’s shadow with few of Her Own magnitudes not because it is small but She more ardently hastens Her motion in order that She may quickly pass through the gloomy place bearing away the souls of the good which cry out and urge Her on because when they are in the shadow they no longer catch the sound of the harmony of heaven.

     At the same time too with wails and cries the souls of the chastised then approach through the shadow from below. That is why most people have the custom of beating brasses during eclipses and of raising a din and clatter against the souls,⁠ which are frightened off also by the so‑called face when they get near it, for it has a grim and horrible aspect.⁠

     It is no such thing, however; but just as our earth contains gulfs that are deep and extensive,⁠ one here pouring in towards us through the Pillars of Heracles and outside the Caspian and the Red Sea with its gulfs,⁠ so those features are depths and hollows of the Moon.

     The largest of them is called⁠ “Hecatê’s Recess,”⁠ where the souls suffer and exact penalties for whatever they have endured or committed after having already become Spirits;⁠ and the two long ones are called “the Gates”,⁠ for through them pass the souls now to the side of the Moon that faces Heaven and now back to the side that faces Earth.⁠ The side of the Moon towards heaven is named “Elysian plain,”⁠ the hither side “House of counter-terrestrial Phersephonê.”
     [XXIX, Cherniss translation]

     The notion of the Moon, itself, as being *where* one finds pertinent Afterworld realm(s) … would be the ‘innovation’. The notion that one finds the Moon, in that intermediate space, with affixions of ‘Gate’, or ‘Vessel’ – well, that would be more on the money.

     Of course, part of the … difficulty … is the conflation of a whole lot of different categories of ‘Dead’ – I should perhaps write a thing in clarification in due course.

     —

     LikeLike

     Reply

   • As applies – ” Sublunary air is Leto or Cadmus, psychic Air is Hera, celestial fire is Zeus, sublunary fire is Semele or Asclepius, who, by “stealing” Zeus’ Power, are subsumed into Him, i.e., return to their source in Zeus,”

     I am not quite sure what the source(s) you are drawing from for this are, but various of the schemas / distinctions drawn up in some (often relatively late) Classical texts can be cases of a context-specific schema having become over-extrapolated into a more general typology.

     One therefore finds various attestations for Hera / Juno in relation to Earth, others in relation to ‘Air’, and so-on. One also observes the situation of ‘Semele’ likely being etymologically, well, ‘Earth’; the correct equation of Hera & Leto (& linkage also in of ‘Night’ – oh, and given ‘Lethe’, not only in cosmological terms but also the mythic, we have a very interesting dimension to explore viz. Demeter / Styx [ https://aryaakasha.com/2024/07/27/diwija-dualis-part-two-disappear-into-darkness/ ], c.f. Rasātala), as given by Plutarch in a fragment preserved by Eusebius, and a few other points.

     As pertains to what you had said – one can find Aditi keyed to the Mid-Atmosphere layer, one can also find Aditi spoken of as being the Earth … and more particularly, the Earth in relation to Fire.

     It is a situation which I have gone through in rather greater depth of explication in this piece – https://aryaakasha.com/2024/12/12/scythian-tabiti-in-her-indo-european-theological-context-part-one-as-to-the-claims-an-empyreical-investigation/ – the long and the short of which being that one is observing a ritualine understanding, in which the Goddess is emplaced into / as the Fire-Altar , through which Gods come forth ‘down here’, for the purposes of the Rite (often, it is a ‘feast’ or ‘banquet’, the idea being that the Gods are down here to receive the offerings to Them). And yes, you can find the relevant ritualine operative elements also in evidence in Classical sources – see the above-linked Scythian Tabiti piece for more.

     “Stealing Zeus’ power” i would not agree with; and would point toward the sentiment expressed by Philolaus [preserved via Stobaeus I 22 1], viz:

     Φιλόλαος πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ περὶ τὸ κέντρον, ὅπερ ἑστίαν τοῦ παντὸς καλεῖ καὶ Διὸς οἶκον καὶ μητέρα
     θεῶν; βωμόν τε καὶ συνοχὴν καὶ μέτρον φύσεως.

     “Philolaus has located the fire in the middle, the center; he calls it Hestia, of the All, the Guardpost of Zeus, the Mother of the Gods, the Altar, the Link, and the Measure of Nature”
     [translation as presented in Guthrie]

     … as a rather interesting expression of something along the lines of what we would anticipate via way of Vedic.

     Of course, it should also be noted that just as ‘Hades’ seems to do double-duty for the Deific and the locale – and just as we find pertinent labelling in Sanskrit for both the Heaven and the Sky Father – so, too, in the context of what you have said, one might anticipate ‘Zeus’ utilized also for the plane / realm. Contingent upon context.

     LikeLike

     Reply

5. Thank you for the time to reply and the addtional sources you provided. The sources I often recur to are the neoplatonists, because they go into detail about certain mythological characters (e.g., Proclus explains the myth of Semele, Dionysus and Prometheus, who “steals” the fire from Zeus, Plutarch the meadows of Hades which is the upper sublunary air, etc…)

   What I meant by stealing Zeus’ power is, of course, poetical, in the sense that just as a child gows and becomes an adult, he takes the role of parent. In this sense, demiurgy is a legitimate Indra-like post, one that is alternated, in Earth by bodies, cosmically probably by souls who attain the same degree of cosmic monad, and in Heaven by Siddhas or Arhats? The confusion I have about the underworld, and other planes, is that I’m not sure if by the astral plane of the physical planets is meant a subtle, analogous sphere, but either way, by Kosmos and Physis they mean the Material World, while others like the theosophists attribute the astral plane to a non-physical dimmension (kama loka).

   You make a good point about temples and open air worship, whihc is a valid point. But my interpretation is that in the physical Kosmos, or at least according to neoplatonism, all the immaterial deiites are present the world by analogy, in a “physical” way or correspondence, and therefore, active in the world. Earthly Zeus is just the way by which the original Zeus acts in the world as a whole, while Katachthonios is basically the same, in the way how his providence or creative power reaches as far as lowest orders of beings., those that are beneath the surface of matter (invisible), such as the physical creation of bodies by procreation, which is effected “under” or inside matter itself. In that sense, demiurgy is extended throughout the world, just as Dionysus’ limbs are extended titanically (Proclus), and whose “heart” or fetus in Zeus’ thigh corresponds to Zeus Chthonios, Katachthonios then being the sublunary Zeus, who, like the Earth’s vegetation is dependent on Moon’s cycle, he creates with Persephone, and therefore, creates both both in matter as germinating seeds (and fetuses), and on the surface as sprouting vegetation (separate bodies). In this way Chthonios and Katachothonios are basically the same (Dionysus), one being just the final extension of the other in the whole of the physical Kosmos.

   As for the Semones and Semo Sancus, interestingly when I used AI to interpret roman mythology and its concepts of

   Pomerium – order, Jupiter, higher spheres;

   Ager – agriculture, sowing (seeds), order in action, mixed environment;~´

   Silvester – Wild, uncultivated, chaos.

   it repeatedly positioned Mars outside the wall as a guardian, Jupiter and the other gods inside the pomerium, and the Semones somewhere between, or as the seeds that are sown in the field, which are stored inside the pomerium first, and then sown. Mars then has both that farming and protective function/connection with Quirinus, who is like the assembly (co) of seeds (viria, the power of men), or the monad of multiplied seeds/power, or the one who distributes them. Euither the Semones and Semo Sancus seem to be pretty close. In neoplatonic cosmology, the Pomerium would correspond to the hypercosmic (four triads), the hypercosmic-encosmic (four triads) perhaps to the storage of seeds (and therefore the Semones as beyond the cosmos but returning) and its guardian triad perhaps the wall itself, with Mars both inside and out to store and sow, the encosmic to the ager, and the sublunary to the wild. I knwo that AI makes mistakes, but I think I’m getting a bit closer 🙂

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • So Romulus would then be truly a deified mortal, because he became Quirinus, acting in a and above the world as creative power. Sometimes the myths have the clues, but much depends on the POV. Rhea Silvia, the wild (sublunary) which proceeds, like Leto that births the twins Artemis and Apollo, bares Romulus and Remo. Romulus is raptured to the sky, but Remus dies in the Ager. In an way this is the dichotomy of soul/body, but who said that Romulus has to return? He was deified anyway. Maybe he can just plant seeds, but remain detached, which means, become part of the civil gods inside the Pomerium, with guardian and demiurgic functions like that of Mars and Jupiter, and those souls that cannot be a permanent part of it, “cannot leap over the Pomerium”, have to die like Remus, or be incarnated.

     I didn’t think roman theology was that evolved and rich, due to the lack of written sources, but clearly I was wrong. There’s a lot going on under its archaic looking surface.

     LikeLike

     Reply