Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What do you think of myths?

Myth today often has a bad name. A story that is untrue, belonging to the infancy of the human race; we have now outgrown such a stage in our development. So it goes.

However, two great 20th century thinkers have thought deeply on the subject of myth/mythology. Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell.

Mr Campbell sees myth as having four functions:-

The first is the mystical or metaphysical function. Myth, Campbell proposes, should serve "to reconcile the waking consciousness to the universe as it is."

The second function of mythology Campbell terms the cosmological function, which "is that of formulating and rendering an image of the universe, a cosmological image in keeping with the science of our time."

The third function is sociological, that of supporting and maintaining a functioning social moral order.

Finally, the fourth function of mythology, which Campbell calls the pedagogical or psychological function, "is to initiate the individual into the order of realities of their own psyche, guiding them toward their own spiritual enrichment and realization."

(This list drawn from "The Archetypal Cosmos" by Keiron Le Grice)

Carl Jung has spoken of the need for "modern man" to regain some sort of overriding outlook to counter the prevailing sense of dislocation felt by many, the need for a "spiritual" outlook ( not "religion/religious" )


How do others see Myth?
One suggestive thought is that both literalists (i.e. "the myth is actual history") and the "it's just an old out-dated made-up story" brigade can both miss out.

Again, from my own Pure Land Buddhist perspective the morphing of literalism and the mythic has a relevance. In Pure Land thought Amida can be seen as "him/her up there" or "out to the West" and the Pure Land is beyond the grave where Amida takes us. Amida can also be seen as a personification of Reality-as-is, and the Pure Land is [i]here, now[/i] when seen with new eyes.

Ideally, one is not seen as better/deeper/more profound than the other. What matters is [i]trust/faith[/i] ("shinjin") and its authenticity in transforming our lives.
DocSavage · M
That depends on the person.
I am currently debating a couple of people who consider myths to be factual stories, some pre-creation, others as biblical reality.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
All religious characters are myths.
@Diotrephes Yes, the interesting thing about some of the inter-faith dialogue between Pure Land Buddhism and the Christian Faith is that certain Christian theologians see the [i]obvious[/i] mythic nature of Pure Land Buddhology as being advantageous.

That [i]every[/i] particular contains the Universal is recognised by many, not simply in the so called "religious" realm. James Joyce and others.

Once you insist that just one "particular" was Universal (i.e. Jesus) and no other, then every distortion under the sun will inevitably follow, including the Inquisition.

More, such will be "worshipped". Rather than actually "incarnated" as ourselves.

I'm dipping into a fine book at the moment about first millennium Christian art depicting the resurrection. It went in two directions. One, "western" where Christ is rising alone in glory. The second strand, "eastern" where Christ rises hand in hand with Adam, Eve and all.

All good stuff to mull over as I sip my cappucinno.

😀

 
Post Comment