The Rites of Mu

 

The Rites of Mu featuring the KLF. From 1991 or 1992. 

Simply Mu

This review is from: MU: THE FIRST GREAT CIVILIZATION - And Its Connection To Peru, The Hopi And New Mexico (Kindle Edition)

George Schwimmer is a spiritual explorer in the areas of past life regression, astral travel (in another book, he recounts his experiences with Robert Monroe's techniques) and shamanism. While I happen to think there might be “something to it”, I would question many of the author's interpretations, which range from extraterrestrial influence to Edgar Cayce's readings. This little pamphlet deals with a subject somewhere in the grey zone between the real world and the twilight zone: the lost continent of Mu, often conflated with Lemuria.

While I used to be a skeptic of all things “Atlanto-maniac”, I now think there might have been several “lost civilizations” on Earth before the great floods at the end of the latest Ice Age. However, I doubt Mu was one of them, since Schwimmer – following Cayce and James Churchward – places it in the Pacific Ocean. In this version, Mu was adjacent to modern California, the home of the New Age. Surely not a co-incidence! A more reasonable location, also mentioned by Schwimmer, would be Sundaland, the former landmass formerly joining Asia and Australia. This would place Mu closer to Lemuria, traditionally placed in the Indian Ocean. Note also that a lost civilization isn't the same thing as a modern “high tech” civilization. For all we know, Atlantis and Lemuria could have been Stone Age civilizations, perhaps similar to the megalith-builders in Europe. On this point, Schwimmer seems to agree, at least when it comes to Mu, which he describes as a “spiritual” civilization, more interested in building temples than developing high technology.

The evidence for Mu-Lemuria given by the author is of extremely varied quality. Some of it is questionable, even naïve. The fact that the syllable “mu” shows up in various words in Native American languages supposedly has something to do with the lost continent, and Schwimmer even wonders whether the Mexican “Dia de los Muertos” (Mu-ertos) has something to do with it. Ahem, no, because Muertos is Spanish. The author also believes in the notorious forgery known as the Ica stones, and expresses surprise at finding fossils of sea-living creatures in the hills! Other pieces of evidence sound more interesting, such as genetic and cultural similarities between Polynesians and Native Americans, or the Vedic claims of a sunken continent in the East. The author's belief that the temple complex at Tiwanaku in Bolivia is 15,000 years old is rejected by modern archeology, which claims its only about 2000 years old, but I admit that this isn't entirely conclusive, since even “new” temples could encode ancient knowledge. The author's main reason for belief in Mu is impossible to asses by modern scientific means: Schwimmer believes *he* is a reincarnated former inhabitant of the sunken continent, presumably based on past life regression. However, I think even some occultists admit that there is a lot of static in past life memories or clairvoyant research of the Akasha!

That being said, this short e-book (which also contains short presentations of other works by the same author) is nevertheless a relatively good “teaser trailer” about the Mu problem as seen by a person interested in Native American spirituality, and I therefore give it three stars.

Vedic myth and genetic reality

“The Myth of The Aryan Invasions of India” is a short booklet written by David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri), an American Hindu teacher. His books on Ayurveda and Jyotish are probably more well known than his works on Indian history. Readers of Graham Hancock's books may have noted that Hancock quotes Frawley as an authority on Vedic culture.

Apparently, right-wing Hindu nationalists deny that the Indo-Aryans originally came from Central Asia, instead arguing that they are indigenous to India. To promote Hindu unity, they also downplay the differences between the Aryans and the Dravidians, arguing that both are natives to the Indian sub-continent and have a common origin. Finally, they promote the idea that India was the original cradle of the Indo-Europeans, indeed of civilization itself, since this is what a traditional interpretation of the Hindu scriptures seems to suggest. Frawley's perspective is similar (with a few twists).

Frawley argues that the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), usually seen as Dravidian or at least non-Aryan, was really Aryan. Or rather Vedic, since Frawley doesn't really like the term “Aryan” when used as an ethnic designation. The IVC never really disappeared, but simply transformed itself into later Iron Age cultures. The main reason was climate change which dried up the great Saraswati river and forced the IVC's to relocate further east, on the Ganges plains. In Frawley's scenario, the Rig Veda was written *before* the IVC, while the IVC itself corresponds to the Yajur and Atharva Vedas. The wars mentioned in the Vedas are not conflicts between Aryans and non-Aryans, but rather between different IVC kingdoms, all of which were Vedic. Frawley believes that three such kingdoms existed. Cultural influence and migrations went from India to the north and west, not the other way around. The cultures of the Middle East were derived from that of India, indeed some Mideast kingdoms were Indo-Aryan. The various Indo-European peoples in Europe represent a northern off-shoot of Vedic culture.

Frawley doesn't seem to believe that ancient Indian culture was “Indo-Aryan” in the strictest sense. Rather, it was multi-ethnic. The author leaves room for both Indo-Aryans, Dravidians and Mundas in his scenario. Sanskrit was the language of the religious and scribal elite, while the common people may very well have spoken other languages, perhaps Dravidian ones. Frawley also believes that Indo-European and Dravidian languages have a common ancestry, and that the corresponding populations represent the same “racial” type, more specifically the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasoid “race”.

The author's most peculiar twist is his stated belief that Vedic civilization didn't originally come from the Indian sub-continent. Rather, it originated further east, in Southeast Asia. Frawley believes in Stephen Oppenheimer's thesis that an advanced founder culture flourished in Sundaland, a landmass that disappeared under the sea at the end of the last Ice Age. Sundaland connected the Malay Peninsula with Sumatra, Borneo and Java. Oppenheimer regards Sundaland as the original homeland of Austronesians and Austroasians, while Frawley (unless I've misunderstood him) consider it the homeland of Indo-Europeans and Dravidians, too! It's not entirely clear why Frawley takes this turn. Perhaps it's a “new agey” trait, since Sundaland is situated approximately where Lemuria or Mu are supposed to have been. Perhaps it's a tie-in to Indian legends about sunken continents, such as Kumari Kandam.

I happen to think that Oppenheimer is on to something (maybe something huge), but I'm less certain about Frawley. He simply rejects all linguistic evidence out of hand, presumably because it doesn't square with his claim that India is the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans. His description of the IVC makes no sense. The IVC was a peaceful culture, whereas the Vedas mention devastating wars. The script of the IVC has never been deciphered, but certainly doesn't look like Sanskrit. Genetic evidence also seems to point to foreign migration to India. The genetic marker M20, which originated 30,000 years ago, is found in southern Indians and is therefore considered a "Dravidian" marker, while M17 (which originated 10,000 years ago in Eastern Europe) is found among Indo-European speakers all over the sub-continent. This is powerful evidence in favor of an "Aryan" Urheimat in Europe. Apparently, Frawley's interpretation of the Rig Veda is considered somewhat idiosyncratic by other scholars in the field. For instance, he believes that the Rig Veda describes a coastal or oceanic culture. However, the word he translates as “sea” is translated “confluence of rivers” by almost everyone else. Overall, Frawley has a tendency to take Hindu scriptures as his *real* authorities, revealing a slightly fundamentalist mindset.

My provisional guess is that Indian cultures may indeed be much older than hitherto believed, but IVC and Aryan/Vedic cultures really are distinct. IVC was probably Dravidian, and there could have been an earlier influence of “Lemurian” peoples. The Indo-Aryans really came from the North with a different tradition. Perhaps we could call their homeland “Hyperborea” just for the fun of it? That being said, “The Myth of the Aryan Invasions of India” is nevertheless a good summary of the criticism of the Aryan Invasion Model. I therefore give it four stars, despite disagreeing with its conclusions.

John Michael Greer's legominism

John Michael Greer is a somewhat Janus-faced author, who has both books about peak oil and occultism to his credit. He has even published a book on monsters.

"Atlantis" straddles the two former subjects: the present crisis of civilization and various esoteric-spiritual subjects. Greer has a more moderate and realistic view of Atlantis than most alternative writers on the mysterious lost continent. Despite that, his books come across as far scarier in the end! However, it also carries a hidden message of hope and renewal. "More on that as we proceed".

As almost everyone knows, the story of Atlantis originally appears in the Greek philosopher Plato's famous dialogue "Timaeus". It's also mentioned in "Critias". Plato claims that Atlantis was an ancient great power, fighting a war against Athens. Atlantis eventually sunk in the sea, due to an enormous earthquake. The island of Atlantis was situated "outside the Pillars of Hercules" (i.e. Gibraltar), which would place it somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. Plato claims that the Greek statesman and reformer Solon heard the story from an Egyptian priest. Speculations about Atlantis, its inhabitants and their eventual fate have been rife ever since, with sceptics either regarding Plato's story as a myth or a garbled account of how the Minoan civilization of Crete was destroyed by a volcanic eruption at Thera. True believers, by contrast, have filled in the original account of "Timaeus" with their own, pretty wild, speculations. Many don't even place Atlantis in the Atlantic! Greer has little problems dispensing with the fringe "theories", although he does it in a relatively charitable manner.

Apart from Atlantis, occultists and people in the rejected-knowledge movement have "discovered" or invented other sunken continents. Of these, Lemuria is the most well-known. Originally a scientific speculation about a land bridge between Madagascar and India, Lemuria has "migrated" eastwards, eventually ending up in California! Some people apparently believe that Mount Shasta is the last remnant of this sunken landmass. There is also the Hyperborean continent and the weirdly named Mu. (Greer doesn't mention the British pop band "Justified Ancients of Mu Mu"!) The most interesting idea from Greer's part is that Madame Blavatsky's "The Secret Doctrine" isn't meant to be taken literally. Rather, it's a exoteric doctrine in the form of a "legominism", an adaptation of the esoteric message in a form appropriate for its time, with the actual contents being hidden beneath a surface seemingly about something else. If Greer is right, Theosophists and others who diligently study Blavatsky's two-volume opus and take it as literal truth, have misunderstood the deeper purpose of the work.

While more "moderate" than most people in the rejected-knowledge movement, the author nevertheless presents some speculations of his own. The Earth was rocked by catastrophic floods, climate change and other disasters at about the same time as Plato's Atlantis is supposed to have been destroyed. Greer further believes that Plato's geography makes sense, and that Atlantis could have been an island off the American Atlantic coast. Both Cuba and the Bahama islands were much larger 10,000 years ago. Greer tentatively suggests that Grand Bahama Bank might have been the location of Atlantis. This is not a new theory, and strange structures have actually been found off the coast of Bimini Island (the famous Bimini Road). In Greer's opinion, they could be man-made.

Of course, if Greer and others are correct, we would have to *radically* revise our view of the Stone Age. Greer believes it's possible to create a real civilization with Stone Age technology, a civilization with towns, ships, empires, advanced art, writing and a relatively advanced agriculture and animal husbandry. Some of his arguments are compelling, others less so. Surely a Stone Age empire is a stretch? Greer is positive towards Charles Hapgood's classic "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings", generally regarded as a pseudo-scientific work. Yet, I admit that his case against knuckle-walking cavemen (or traditional hunters and gatherers) is somewhat stronger than I expected.

Of course, John Michael Greer has an agenda with "Atlantis", as those familiar with his other books might have guessed already. Greer is a strong opponent of the Myth of Progress, and a supporter of the cyclical view of history. Modern civilization is inevitably heading for disaster because of cataclysmic climate change. Even apart from man-made disasters, Earth is an unstable planet. Naturally occurring changes in climate have occurred before, and even worse disasters are possible. Thus, a volcanic eruption at La Palma in the Canary Islands could create a megatsunami that would literally wipe out the U.S. East Coast, including New York City and Washington DC, flooding everything in its way until stopped by the Appalachians. It will happen, sooner or later - if tomorrow or in ten thousand years, nobody knows. Frankly, I was scared reading ppg. 126-129 of this book! Greer's hard line comment: "Get used to it". Ooops.

Thus, the story of Atlantis carries an unexpected warning to our own time: the Myth of Progress is phoney, the Stone Age was really quite advanced, but its sophisticated civilization eventually went under, so what makes us think we are any different? However, "Atlantis" also contains a germ of hope. The other coin of Greer's reasoning is that humans can create a viable civilization even without modern, Western technology. Thus, the human race doesn't have to go extinct just because *we* do (this apocalyptic idea is really the flip side of the Myth of Progress). Even after massive future disasters, enough of humanity will survive to start the cycle anew, on a very different planet - just as we did the last time around, after the destruction of Atlantis.

"Atlantis" thus turns out to be Greer's very own legominism. It's not really a book about Atlantis at all, but carries a hidden message adapted to the conspiracist-sensationalist sensibilities of the Internet age. People seemed to have missed the real point of Blavatsky's oeuvre. I can only hope that they won't miss the point of John Michael Greer...