Nungali

New edition to my rainforest garden Beehive ginger . I already have taller blue ones they blue flowers fall and decorate the green moss path in to the cabin

.... you mean ' our brains operate on the concept of dualism ' ... https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-you-are-actually-two-brains-living-in-one-person

Ha ha haaar ! You guys are a crack up .... save yourselves some time and skip all the fake Lama BS at the beginning of this vid and go to 1:25 ... seriously ?

Originally a monotheism of deity but a dualism of 'good and evil' in humans .

...... I hope you didnt give the left overs to the cat !

Lois , did you have any mushrooms with your dinner ?

I looked into it a bit further ; the earliest Avestan 'scripture' are the Gathas and that is where the concept of Spenta, Vohu and Angra Mainyu first appear ( in the 'Spenta Mainyu Gatha' ) , and usually translated as 'mind' , as it appears in the this translation of the relevant hymn ; http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/gathas_spenta_mainyu_gatha.htm Yasna 47 - 51 Regarding Translations of the terms and stages of development and understanding ( re ; personification / deification Vs 'quality' ) But with the advent of Zoroastrian studies, led and encouraged by Western scholars, a change set in. Studies of the Gathas and the later Avesta revealed that spenta mainyu was referred to as an entity. And since then, almost all Zoroastrians and those who are well acquainted with the Zarathushtrian religion know the term spenta mainyu. Because the Gathas and the later Avesta were translated into English and other European languages, mostly by Christian scholars who had the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit in mind, the term has conventionally come to mean the Holy Spirit. The general notion about it is that it has an adversary, Anghra Mainyu, the evil spirit. The two are locked in a pitched life-and-death combat. The victory, of course, will go to the Holy Spirit. Meaning: Spenta is derived by many philologists from an Avestan/Sanskrit root spi/svi, meaning "to expand, swell, increase." Many, therefore, render it as "incremental." The Pahlavi rendering of afzûnik, meaning "increasing," fully supports the translation. This is further strengthened by the later renderings mahattama (greatest), gurutama (most important), and particularly, vriddhi (increasing) in Sanskrit, and afzûni in Persian. There are other scholars who prefer to derive it from spit/shvit, to be bright, to be white, and consequently connect it with holiness. The renderings by most of these scholars range between "beneficent, bounteous, bountiful, incremental, holy and virtuous." Each scholar has reasons for his/her rendering. While scholars have reason to differ, the familiar and convenient "holy" has been taken for granted to be the meaning so much so that fundamental Iranians, in their drive to purge Persian of all Arabic words, have replaced moghaddas with sepanta! "Holy" is in vogue, both with scholars and the laity. I accept the traditional meaning on philological and contextual grounds. I render it as "progressive, promoting, promoter." As we shall see, it reflects the Gathic concept better. The Gathas emphatically advocate progress and advancement. Mainyu is, as far as I know, derived by every scholar and Avesta/Sanskrit dictionary from man, meaning "to think, contemplate, meditate." Ervad Kanga gives "spirit, mind, brain" and Bartholomae gives "Geist, als Sitz des Denkens und Wollens - spirit/mind, the seat of thoughts and intentions." Even the Sanskrit dictionaries define it as "mind, zeal, spirit, mood, mettle." And "spirit" here only means "temper or disposition of mind" and NOT "a supernatural being or essence." Although many know that yu is an agentive and instrumental suffix, none has bothered to translate it as "an instrument, a way, a mode of thinking," and therefore "mind, mentality." A few instances in the Gathas show that mainyu and manah are interchangeable (S 6:6 = Y 33.6; S 7:2 = Y34.2). Pahlavi and Persian do not help much because they have the same word as menok and mînu except for a few times when menishn, thinking, has been used. The root for "think" is menidan. The Pahlavi literature shows its connection with "mind" and "mental." Sanskrit renderings of adrsyah, paralokih, even manasah (mental), and other synonyms point towards an "invisible, outer" entity. Whatever the earlier renderings, the scholars have taken the by-now-popular translation of "spirit" in the Christian sense as quite suitable to their interpretation of a perpetual war between the so-called twin spirits. It suits them better. A departure may well topple the dramatic dualistic theory! Many present Ahura Mazda as Spenta Mainyu and therefore elevate Anghra Mainyu to make him an adversary of the God of Good, and thus continue to write on the continuous fight between the two. As a result, Zoroastrians have been characterized by many as the people who believe in dualism. As already pointed out, there was a time when the Zoroastrians believed in this dualistic "theology." The Vendidad tells us this and so do the writings written by and/or ascribed to the Sassanians and to those who followed them. New light on the Gathas and the later Avesta has changed views among intellectuals. But we see again a recession, because with the coming into prominence of a new class of Zoroastrian scholars with their academic roots in the dualistic scholarship of the later Avesta, the theory of the dualism of Ahura Mazda and His adversary is reappearing in certain quarters. ( extract ) ; http://www.zoroastrian.org.uk/vohuman/Article/Spenta Mainyu.htm

I feel this is because the model is in its early forms and has become restricted and limited by some. psychology has some interesting concepts and terms that are real and workable, just as astrology has in understanding the makeup of the human 'psychic anatomy' ( psychic , as pertaining to 'the psyche' ) but psychology is not the be all and end all answer IMO, its a stage of perception we are collectively going through that is being modified. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h9MxNn8P7w It removed an essential 3rd principle . And as you say, developed a duality that took over human understanding , what seems to have been eliminated is 'soul' ; the triad body , spirit, soul . Spirit and soul got sorta squashed together and both became a ghost like double in polarity with body . Then they became 'mind' or anything 'non-corporeal ' ... essentially the 'ideal' , so now we have a duality or 'real' and 'ideal' (of the mind ) . If you haven't read it already, you might find this interesting ; Agreed . I am a 'multiple solution' type . That really annoys me ! You point out a minor issue and all of a sudden are 'in the enemy camp' !

A very advanced teacher for his times then !

But you would probably prefer ;

I have a holiday house out west you are welcome to stay in

Perhaps we could call it an outside force in that we inherit it genetically ... we have two ; one is like the 'Id' very self centred and ego driven as an individual survivor - takes what it wants and acts regardless. A very old programme in the 'hind brain' , virtually 'reptilian' . The other, has to do with being primates and evolving to live in social extended family groups ; behaviour is modified 'descent' and considerate of others and the group process , the 'Superego' which modifies the 'base instincts' has developed as this helps us to live together and that has proved to be beneficial to the species. So it is internal, as we have it , but it is also a 'spirit' or force or 'information' that we inherited .

Thats an interesting view and I agree somewhat. In reading the scripture, at first, it seems to be ascribing dualism to originating in thoughts and deeds ; the mind .... good mind or bad mind . Later it appears to have been mythologised into 'beings' . Yet other readings seem to put the personifications first ; at a much earlier time people did ascribe these forces to 'outside' beings / entities. Not sure though, the dating of the various texts is tricky and I dont know enough about that to discern what actually came first. At a guess, people generally, at earlier times , seemed to believe more in the outside influences; angels demons gods, etc. in driving human behaviour . Any 'internal responsibility' for 'psychology' seems to have come much later. But then again, this may be a result of modern thinking ; back then, there may have not been as much differentiation between 'outer and inner' or , 'the mind' may have not been limited to its biological generator , that is, it 'interfaced with' or was an aspect of the 'great mind' , 'anima mundi' world soul. But, for myself, not believing in Gods ( well, at least not believing in Gods in the way modern people think more ancient people believed in them ) , I think the process generates from 'mana ' , a type of concept for 'mind' . But that comes from 'Mainyu' a concept of an entity , God or demon . "Aka Manah is the hypostatic abstraction of accusative akem manah (akәm manah), "manah made evil". The objectification of this malign influence is the demon Aka/Akem Manah, who appears in later texts as Middle Persian Akoman and New Persian Akvan. " " In the Younger Avesta, Akem Manah is unambiguously a demonic entity, an auxiliary of Angra Mainyu. " - ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aka_Manah I prefer the idea of 'psychological complex ' ; a pattern of desires, behaviours, actions that have gained their own power and operate outside of the will and sometimes consciousness and ego of the individual. The 'complex' seems to have more power than the person that has them, or the person that tries to change them . In this case, yes, it is like an 'outside' force' .

This too is henotheism

Do you mean the Zoroastrians did not have concept of devil ? Original PIE roots of the words ( devil, evil, deviant , etc ) , daeva ; the daevas are "wrong gods", "false gods" or "gods that are (to be) rejected". This meaning is – subject to interpretation – perhaps also evident in the Old Persian "daiva inscription" of the 5th century BCE. In the Younger Avesta, the daevas are noxious creatures that promote chaos and disorder. In later tradition and folklore, the dēws (Zoroastrian Middle Persian; New Persian divs) are personifications of every imaginable evil. - Wiki. They may well have started the devil concept . Also ; The Middle Persian equivalent is Ahriman (Anglicised pronunciation: /ˈɑːrɪmən/). Angra Mainyu is omnimalevolent. Angra Mainyu is Ahura Mazda's evil twin. - Wiki. Many assert that Zoroastrianism is not monotheism but henotheism because of these above issues. There is another term, which I forget at the moment , that is specific to their belief , it means that Zoroastrianism will become monotheistic in the future , once Ahriman is 'deposed' and becomes non-existent .

In Australia , the criminals are the folk traditions ; The Big Ned; Or, if you feeling tough, a ned bumper sticker or jacket patch ; Ho - hum ...

Lois ... is this you with shave and haircut ? What a fantastically shot piece of cinematography !

You should take holiday there

....... but , if it never sunk compleatly , might be still there ! There is an island further out ; Socotra. never heard of it ? ...... yes, there is a hotel there for you to stay in

How long ago , recently ? There is an old site there underwater .... if you mean Yonoguni ? Its geological ... and some doctored pics of it suggesting otherwise were busted a while back . Aside from the atrocious 'information' in the above linked article, the location of the Gulf of Aden isnt too bad . if one considers its location, and variant sea levels over time and moving 'sand bars' during low sea level periods in both the 'mouths' of the Persian and Aden Gulfs. There may have been very early sea travel from Egypt in the Red Sea, from there, they had to pass through the ' pillars' into the Gulf ( and they may have changed to a Greek name as the story passed into a Greek language - if it did originally come from Egypt. The area is also vulnerable to displacement ; There are also hints of very early peoples crossing to and fro from Djibouti / Yemen ( the narrow 'pillars' ) . Its possible that people that had a base in the area came up the Red Sea and attacked the Egyptian coastal port ; Divers Uncover World's Oldest Harbor, in Red Sea Archaeologists find monumental harbor built by King Cheops 4,600 years ago at Wadi el-Jarf to import stuffs to build the Great Pyramid of Giza https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-divers-uncover-world-s-oldest-harbor-in-red-sea-1.5464894 All deep underwater, on the bottom under millennia of sediment by now .

A lot of its coast line is wild and rugged and exposed to the Atlantic weather