Drawn to Gods but not their Culture

[Lilirin]

To be honest I did not actually mean the comment with any seriousness.

 
I thought you did because there is some parlells with the concept of nahualli, me and my heathen friend were shocked by the coincidences. Of course that is more of Aztec magical thought than religion.

[Lilirin]

Incorrect. Sacrifices were done for ollin. "If I don't sacrifice people to Tonatiuh the sun will stop moving! The world will end!". Ollin = movement. This is also why flesh was eaten. This isn't too far off from Jesus. But if you want to argue with various ethnographers and anthropologists, be my guest.

I need to slightly correct myself here. Ollin doesn't exactly mean "movement" but is a part of the concept of sacrifice.

Inamics complement, unite, and compete with one another in three principal ways: ollin, malinalli, and nepantla. Ollin, malinalli, and nepantla represent three different fundamental patterns of what I call motion-change. Aztec metaphysics views qualitative change such as being born, growing old, and dying as a species of movement. Together, these three define the dynamics of the cosmos of the 5th Era as well as explain the ordering, becoming, and diversity of the 5th Era. Understanding these three kinds of motion-change gives us insight into understanding why teotl’s changes are regular, orderly, predictable, and transformative rather than chaotic and random.

(1)

This goes back to my point about continuing the sacrifices to keep the sun moving.

OP: Anyway, back to my other point that I was saying to the OP, I find a lot of religions outdated. The Aztec one is an example. (But it goes for other things such as more biblical literal forms of Christianity.) Globalization and modern tech has really changed the world and how we think. (Such as about slavery.) There are parts of older religions I do not considered outdated. (Certain philosophies, gods even.) But overall some of the morality/practices just really doesn't work for the times, at least to me. This is an opinion btw from studying archaeology and anthropology for a couple of years.

 If eclecticism works more for you as it does for me, then go for it. If a more traditional approach works for you go for that. I am really not even sure gods care about such semantics all the time.

[RandallS]

And Timothy Knabb's ethnographic book Dialogue of the Earth and Sky. There's a lot of paralells between Christianity and the Aztec religion. Even down to baptism. I'm sure you can find more if you want to go digging deeper. The Aztecs even had that cult of virginity thing.

I doubt the parallels are more than superficial in most cases. That is, while they may have parallel rituals I doubt the detailed beliefs behind those rituals were all that similar. Main religions have such superficial similarities without being very similar at all when examined more closely. Unfortunately, there have always been people (including some academics) more interested in the superficial similarities.

[Yei]

'Aztec' is the actual academic term and is used by FAMSI. I will go by the academic terms as I have mentioned in my secular Mesoamerican blog. This was the general consensus among the recon community I was a part of, as well. The Mixtecs didn't call themselves Mixtec either, yet we don't really used what the call themselves.

I am actually well aware of the Academic use of the term 'Aztec'. But it is used most for convenience, not because it has any historical value per se. In fact, Humbolt developed the term specifically so Mexica would not be confused with Mexicans.
And we actually do know what the Mixtec called themselves, sort of. They are the 'nyuu davi (or savi). Actually there are loads of variations on that spelling. While we don't know exactly how they used the term, we are not as oblivious as one might suppose.

My point was missed.

Then perhaps your point was not very clear.

The reason that the Florentine codex is considered the largest primary resource on the Aztecs and THE primary source on them is because it confers with the archaeology.

I have said this several times. I am fully aware of all the major/important sources in Mesoamerican history. The Florentine Codex, Duran's various texts, Codex Chimalpopoca, Popol Vuy (actually K'iche).

The problem is that the Florentine Codex is actually a Nahua and Franciscan source, a fact that has been recognised at least since James Lockhart.

I am not projecting "European" values on them as you say. I simply going by academia and various research. Sexual history was not irrelevant as people were punished for adultery via stoning and punished for premartial sex to death, especially if you were a part of calmecac. (The codex Chimalpopoca goes into some detail on deviant sexual behavior that they people were punished for.)The Aztecs were pretty conservative and this was noted by the Spanish.

The fact that there were concepts like this, put it similar to Christianity in emphasizing purity, especially for girls. But I believe it was Duran that mentioned the marriage-blood thing.

I have actually read both of those texts. Here is the problem. In the first text (Moreno), it is referring to the Calmec specifically. Very few people actually went to the Calmec compared to the overall population. The Telpochcalli was much more widely attended. I remember reading an article (Possibly by David Carrasco) discussing sexual behaviour in the Tempochcalli. While such activity was against the rules, it was apparently tolerated in reality.
In the second text the quote is essentially verbatim from the Florentine Codex, with all the associated problems. As for Duran, I do not recall Duran ever discussing this. Can you specify which text it is supposed to be in.

Incorrect. Sacrifices were done for ollin. "If I don't sacrifice people to Tonatiuh the sun will stop moving! The world will end!". Ollin = movement. This is also why flesh was eaten. This isn't too far off from Jesus. But if you want to argue with various ethnographers and anthropologists, be my guest.

What! This is nonsense. Even a cursory glance shows that this is not true. For a start most Mexica sacrifices were to rain gods, with Tlaloc participating in 9 out of 18 monthly festivals. There is a whole lot more about 'sacrifice' that I could go on about, but I would need pages and pages. If I remember rightly, David Carrasco discusses alot of this stuff in 'City of Sacrifice'. Instead I just want to focus on that connection to Jesus. You say that this isn't too 'far off'. I beg to differ. Even in your version the impact of sacrifice is very temporal. In Christianity the emphasis focuses on the soul. Mexica sacrifice is communal, while Christian salvation is individual. The two are very different and the resemblance is skin deep.

I wasn't saying they were punished in the afterlife, although that gets sketchy when you read about Mictlan and how nobles received better burials for their journey. They were however, promised heaven if they sacrificed themselves for the gods. There are Christian concepts of this too. They're just not as common nowadays.

Again, completely ignoring all the differences. This is what I'm railing against, the picking out of superficially similar points while ignoring all that is different. For a start, the conception of heavan/the afterlife. For the Mexica it was a multi-layered system where the manner of death determined the destination. This is obviously different from the Christian concept. It also ignores what happened in the afterlife. For the Mexica the afterlife was a time of transformation, while in Christianity is seems to be more of a static permanence.

Well, people who lived through it and academia on the subject disagree. I think it was in the Florentine codex actually that the Aztecs saw parallels between themselves and Christianity with killing in the name of. So, I'm going with academics on this subject after reading hoards of primary and secondary sources on the subject for almost a decade.

It does not matter if the Mexica saw similarities, for several reasons. First of all, as I have said before the Florentine Codex is heavily influenced by Franciscan Christianity. In addition the informants may have easily misunderstood Christian concepts, and there is some evidence from Duran and De Landa that this was happening.

Because I don't feel like derailing a thread but okay. I try to go for more direct sources.

I have read many of them.
 

I thought you did because there is some parlells with the concept of nahualli, me and my heathen friend were shocked by the coincidences. Of course that is more of Aztec magical thought than religion.

I would hesitate to seriously attempt to link the two, for the fear of focusing on superficial detail at the expense of the overall picture.
 

I need to slightly correct myself here. Ollin doesn't exactly mean "movement" but is a part of the concept of sacrifice.

(1)

This goes back to my point about continuing the sacrifices to keep the sun moving.

Come on now, there is a whole lot more to Mesoamerican religion than that. The concepts are broken down and spread out, but can be found in some of the texts I have mentioned earlier.

I could make a final statement here, though much of it would simply be a repeat of what I have said earlier: that the similarities are shallow, and focusing on them ignores what is different. This can be seen in almost everything, from the meaning of sacrifice, to concepts of the heavans, to ideas about the natural world.

[Lilirin]

I doubt the parallels are more than superficial in most cases. That is, while they may have parallel rituals I doubt the detailed beliefs behind those rituals were all that similar. Main religions have such superficial similarities without being very similar at all when examined more closely. Unfortunately, there have always been people (including some academics) more interested in the superficial similarities.

 
This is dependent on time, region, and culture. For example, there are more parallels that are less superficial between the Old Testament, Canaanite religion (Because they have come to the conclusion that the Hebrews are Canaanite or originally were Canaanites.), and Mesopotamian religions. They're all concurrent with each other and influenced each other at varying degrees.

[Lilirin]

I am actually well aware of the Academic use of the term 'Aztec'. But it is used most for convenience, not because it has any historical value per se. In fact, Humbolt developed the term specifically so Mexica would not be confused with Mexicans.
And we actually do know what the Mixtec called themselves, sort of. They are the 'nyuu davi (or savi). Actually there are loads of variations on that spelling. While we don't know exactly how they used the term, we are not as oblivious as one might suppose.

You are the first person I have seen use this term. Everyone else I know does not.

The problem is that the Florentine Codex is actually a Nahua and Franciscan source, a fact that has been recognised at least since James Lockhart.

Archaeology is based on physical evidence and the FC has been proven correct in probably most cases. I have never met anyone oppose this as THE primary source view. The one Aztec person who lead the group is going to school for this stuff, so it reflects academic views. I, for one, will also take the more academic view about the Aztec vs Mexica debate, among others.

In the second text the quote is essentially verbatim from the Florentine Codex, with all the associated problems. As for Duran, I do not recall Duran ever discussing this. Can you specify which text it is supposed to be in.

I unfortunately do not have his book and some of the others atm, as I have moved across states and lost a lot of my Mesoamerican book collection. I would love to get back to you on it though. When I do find it I will definitely be happy to give you the source.

What! This is nonsense. Even a cursory glance shows that this is not true. For a start most Mexica sacrifices were to rain gods, with Tlaloc participating in 9 out of 18 monthly festivals. There is a whole lot more about 'sacrifice' that I could go on about, but I would need pages and pages. If I remember rightly, David Carrasco discusses alot of this stuff in 'City of Sacrifice'. Instead I just want to focus on that connection to Jesus. You say that this isn't too 'far off'. I beg to differ. Even in your version the impact of sacrifice is very temporal. In Christianity the emphasis focuses on the soul. Mexica sacrifice is communal, while Christian salvation is individual. The two are very different and the resemblance is skin deep.

Once again, you are the only one I've seen opposed to the concept of ollin and sacrifice. (By thinking it's about creation.) No one argued this so I find it odd you do. Could you explain why you do not believe in ollin? Why you would reject one of the basic precepts of sacrifice? I am curious, this is outside of the Jesus thing btw.

Again, completely ignoring all the differences. This is what I'm railing against, the picking out of superficially similar points while ignoring all that is different. For a start, the conception of heavan/the afterlife. For the Mexica it was a multi-layered system where the manner of death determined the destination. This is obviously different from the Christian concept. It also ignores what happened in the afterlife. For the Mexica the afterlife was a time of transformation, while in Christianity is seems to be more of a static permanence.

No, actually it is not. Christian, especially Catholic, beliefs can be varied and believe in multiple afterlives. (You can see how some developed certain occult beliefs such as the astral plane.)There is not one "Christianity" everyone subscribes to as you keep seemingly, arguing from a more Protestant perspective. There is over 6000 denominations alone, which include off shoots such as folk Catholicism. Christianity has a pretty diverse region, and is comparable to the word "pagan" in being an umbrella term for a multitude of belief systems.

It does not matter if the Mexica saw similarities, for several reasons. First of all, as I have said before the Florentine Codex is heavily influenced by Franciscan Christianity. In addition the informants may have easily misunderstood Christian concepts, and there is some evidence from Duran and De Landa that this was happening.

Once again; physical evidence. If I had to go with this view or the academic, I am going with the current academic view.

I would hesitate to seriously attempt to link the two, for the fear of focusing on superficial detail at the expense of the overall picture.

I never said there weren't dissimilarities, but there are also a lot of similarities. Some had been noted by the Aztecs themselves. It may be you don't agree with them. That is fine. I, on the other hand, would rather as I said before, go by a more objective and academic view of the subject.
 

I could make a final statement here, though much of it would simply be a repeat of what I have said earlier: that the similarities are shallow, and focusing on them ignores what is different. This can be seen in almost everything, from the meaning of sacrifice, to concepts of the heavans, to ideas about the natural world.

No one said they were focusing on it. I was asked for an opinion and I gave it. I think the Aztec religion shouldn't really be reconstructed in Pre-Colombian form, and neither should some older versions of Christianity. Obviously, this differs from your perspective. That is fine. I noticed you were very different in practice than all the other "recons" (I don't even think they call themselves that anymore.) that I have seen. As I was part of the community, there was a general consensus on things such as the Aztec religion continuing today, using the word Aztec, ollin, the meaning and purpose of sacrifice, and some other views. But yours are different from that. I don't really know what to say.

[Yei]

You are the first person I have seen use this term. Everyone else I know does not.

Well it is not exactly a common term. I myself have only seen it a few times, and spelled differently every time. But then again I am not an expert on the Mixtec.

Archaeology is based on physical evidence and the FC has been proven correct in probably most cases. I have never met anyone oppose this as THE primary source view. The one Aztec person who lead the group is going to school for this stuff, so it reflects academic views. I, for one, will also take the more academic view about the Aztec vs Mexica debate, among others.

Several points:
1) I did not deny the importance of the Florentine Codex. What I pointed out is that the Codex is not an objective source. It its the product of a particular time and place. This is something recognised by modern academics.
2) Academic views on the terms 'Mexica' and 'Aztec' are far more complex than you are pointing out. I think that Clendinnen uses the term Mexica almost exclusively, while other scholars take the time to point out the inadequacies of the term 'Aztec', even if they still use it.
3) Archaeology, whose archaeology? Something by Michael E. Smith? Or does it come from Mexico? Perhaps someone from the Templo Mayor project?

I unfortunately do not have his book and some of the others atm, as I have moved across states and lost a lot of my Mesoamerican book collection. I would love to get back to you on it though. When I do find it I will definitely be happy to give you the source.

Don't worry, I am also apart from my source collection.

Once again, you are the only one I've seen opposed to the concept of ollin and sacrifice. (By thinking it's about creation.) No one argued this so I find it odd you do. Could you explain why you do not believe in ollin? Why you would reject one of the basic precepts of sacrifice? I am curious, this is outside of the Jesus thing btw.

I'm not against the concepts of ollin and sacrifice, I'm against your explanation of them. Perhaps you mis-typed though. The idea that the Mexica sacrificed to feed the sun is a popular one, and not entirely wrong. But most scholars agree (Carrasco, Clendinnen, Sigal, for example) that there is a lot more to it than that. See, the Mexica actually called sacrifice 'debt-payment', the word in Nahuatl is 'nextlahualli'. The idea is that the gods had sacrificed themselves to create the world. Man was therefore indebted to the gods and were obligated to repay them. These rituals have huge connections to fertility, to rejuvenation, and were only occasionally directed towards the sun. Besides, sacrifice was only a small part of Mesoamerican ritual life. There was also singing, dancing, and drinking. Ignoring all this stuff is to ignore the rich complexity of worship in Mesoamerica.

No, actually it is not. Christian, especially Catholic, beliefs can be varied and believe in multiple afterlives. (You can see how some developed certain occult beliefs such as the astral plane.)There is not one "Christianity" everyone subscribes to as you keep seemingly, arguing from a more Protestant perspective. There is over 6000 denominations alone, which include off shoots such as folk Catholicism. Christianity has a pretty diverse region, and is comparable to the word "pagan" in being an umbrella term for a multitude of belief systems.

I am aware of the complexities within Christianity. Note that I did not say that Christians did not have multiple versions of the afterlife, I said that their system was different, and built around different principles.

Once again; physical evidence. If I had to go with this view or the academic, I am going with the current academic view.

What physical evidence?

I never said there weren't dissimilarities, but there are also a lot of similarities. Some had been noted by the Aztecs themselves. It may be you don't agree with them. That is fine. I, on the other hand, would rather as I said before, go by a more objective and academic view of the subject.

 
It does not matter if the Mexica themselves saw similarities. We don't know what their motives were, nor do we know how much they knew about Christianity. These men were probably not experts in comparative religion, so why should we expect them to have some deep insight into this?

No one said they were focusing on it. I was asked for an opinion and I gave it. I think the Aztec religion shouldn't really be reconstructed in Pre-Colombian form, and neither should some older versions of Christianity. Obviously, this differs from your perspective. That is fine. I noticed you were very different in practice than all the other "recons" (I don't even think they call themselves that anymore.) that I have seen. As I was part of the community, there was a general consensus on things such as the Aztec religion continuing today, using the word Aztec, ollin, the meaning and purpose of sacrifice, and some other views. But yours are different from that. I don't really know what to say.

What other Mesoamerican recons do you know? They are pretty rare here. A few drift by every now and then, but soon disappear. I suspect that my views are not fundamentally different, just more detailed and exacting, using different terminology.

Here's the thing, when I see your explanations of Mesoamerican religions, despite you insistence on academia, it seems to be the pop-culture version. It seems to rely on a superficial understanding, which is why I use that term a lot.
See, you don't seem to be aware that I have been studying the Mexica for five years, which is actually how I came to be here. I am familiar with the sources, both primary and secondary. And academia is not actually all that certain on the similarities. For example, many will discuss the presence of confession rituals in both Mexico and Europe. But then they will go on to point out how those rituals are different. When comparisons are made in these texts, the authors are only commenting on their superficial similarity, and do not intend any deeper comparison than that.

[Juniperberry]

I'm not against the concepts of ollin and sacrifice, I'm against your explanation of them. Perhaps you mis-typed though. The idea that the Mexica sacrificed to feed the sun is a popular one, and not entirely wrong. But most scholars agree (Carrasco, Clendinnen, Sigal, for example) that there is a lot more to it than that. See, the Mexica actually called sacrifice 'debt-payment', the word in Nahuatl is 'nextlahualli'. The idea is that the gods had sacrificed themselves to create the world. Man was therefore indebted to the gods and were obligated to repay them.

I'm not really familiar at all with mesoamerican (?) religion, but I've been following this discussion with interest.

I have to say that the part quoted above does sound very similar to the concept of Jesus' sacrifice. And earlier, Lilirin's concept of "movement" reminded me of heathenry. It's interesting that the arguments you both are making seem to be contradicting your respective stance--to this observer at least.

[Lana288]

I'm not really familiar at all with mesoamerican (?) religion, but I've been following this discussion with interest.

Honestly, I'm seconding this. I don't research Mexica mythology/culture much, and this thread's been really interesting to read through.
 

I wonder if it's unusual to be drawn to gods but not the culture they come from? I usually follow deities from Mediterranean cultures and identify with them, but once in a while, usually in the summer, I feel an intense pull towards Freyr and Freyja. I have no affinity for Norse culture though, so I honour these gods without going too deeply into their cultural context. I guess it's not that strange for those not using a recon methodology, but I think it's weird that gods come knocking from a culture I'm not that interested in. Does anyone have similar experiences?

 
I don't think it's unusual. I mean, it's good to be interested in a culture, but I don't think you have to be obsessed with the culture that a pagan religion stems from in order to have a good relationship with their deities. And honestly, this type of thread ("how do I balance deities from 2+ pantheons") shows up on the Cauldron on a fairly regular basis, so you're definitely not alone in trying to juggle everything/everyone that shows up.

I think the closest experience I have to that is my dance between the Baltic and Kemetic pantheons. In my case, I love the Baltic deities, and I have good relationships with several of them, but their culture... well, I enjoy researching it, but I'm not in love with it. On the flip side, I adore Ancient Egyptian culture. So. There's that.

[Yei]

I'm not really familiar at all with mesoamerican (?) religion, but I've been following this discussion with interest.

I have to say that the part quoted above does sound very similar to the concept of Jesus' sacrifice. And earlier, Lilirin's concept of "movement" reminded me of heathenry. It's interesting that the arguments you both are making seem to be contradicting your respective stance--to this observer at least.

 
There is a saying about this, something like:
'every story you read in the papers is absolutely true, except the one with which you are already acquainted.'

You are a Heathen right? Unfortunately I don't know enough about Heathenism to use it in an example to demonstrate the problem, or the general Heathen position on connections with Christianity. Perhaps something like comparing Odin hanging himself from the world tree (this is a myth right?) and Jesus' crucifixion. Would you say that there are deep similarities between the two, and would other Heathens agree?

[Darkhawk]

Christianity has a pretty diverse region, and is comparable to the word "pagan" in being an umbrella term for a multitude of belief systems.

 
This is trivially false.

All forms of Christianity are drawn from the same theological root, with the same heritage, and the same set of entities of veneration; variations, no matter how extensive, will not, for example, change that all forms of Christianity have some sort of defined relationship with an entity referred to as Christ.

This is by no means a comparable term to a category that describes hundreds of different religions - not denominations and variants - with different theological roots, heritage, and entities of veneration.  Suggesting that it does completely trivialises the fact that different pagan religions are in fact different religions.

[Juniperberry]

You are a Heathen right? Unfortunately I don't know enough about Heathenism to use it in an example to demonstrate the problem, or the general Heathen position on connections with Christianity. Perhaps something like comparing Odin hanging himself from the world tree (this is a myth right?) and Jesus' crucifixion. Would you say that there are deep similarities between the two, and would other Heathens agree?

 
Sure, heathenry has it's own stuff. But that doesn't prove anything about whether or not the Mayan/Christian similarities are true or false. I'd rather you'd appeal to my intellect and not my emotions.

[Yei]

Sure, heathenry has it's own stuff. But that doesn't prove anything about whether or not the Mayan/Christian similarities are true or false. I'd rather you'd appeal to my intellect and not my emotions.

 
Clearly you missed the point then. What I was trying to demonstrate was how easy it is to make comparisons and judgements based on a superficial glance, which are easily false if you actually have information about the subject matter, rather than as a specific explanation of Maya/Christian comparisons. I would use a more relevant example, but since you don't have a lot of information about Mesoamerican religions you would not be able to tell what is superficial and what is not. So I was intending to use an example where you would have the details, and would be able to see how the superficial comparison was incorrect. Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge about Heathenism to really do this.

[Juniperberry]

Clearly you missed the point then. What I was trying to demonstrate was how easy it is to make comparisons and judgements based on a superficial glance, which are easily false if you actually have information about the subject matter, rather than as a specific explanation of Maya/Christian comparisons. I would use a more relevant example, but since you don't have a lot of information about Mesoamerican religions you would not be able to tell what is superficial and what is not. So I was intending to use an example where you would have the details, and would be able to see how the superficial comparison was incorrect. Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge about Heathenism to really do this.

I understood. But the fact that superficial comparison may be incorrect 99% of the time doesn't mean the comparison is incorrect in *this* instance.

I'm just asking you to explain why it's superficial. I can't do anything in the future with the information you've given me so far, "Oh, I know it's not comparable because Yei told me so." No. I'd sound like a jackass.

If you don't have the energy to explain that's fair. But don't expect me to just take your word for it because I've had relatable experiences.

[Yei]

I understood. But the fact that superficial comparison may be incorrect 99% of the time doesn't mean the comparison is incorrect in *this* instance.

Except I was not referring solely to this instance, but the tendency of making superficial comparisons in a more general sense.

I'm just asking you to explain why it's superficial. I can't do anything in the future with the information you've given me so far, "Oh, I know it's not comparable because Yei told me so." No. I'd sound like a jackass.

If you don't have the energy to explain that's fair. But don't expect me to just take your word for it because I've had relatable experiences.

I did explain. I said that (referring to your earlier comment) the similarities between the sacrificial symbolism of the death of the Mesoamerican gods and the death of Jesus is superficial because:
1) The sacrifice of the Mesoamerican gods is essentially a temporal one which impacts the material world, rather than the afterlife, while Jesus' sacrifice is largely about the afterlife.
2) Jesus' sacrifice was essentially redemptive i.e.: grounded in Christian concepts of morality while the sacrifice of the Mesoamerican gods was an act of creation.
3) Jesus' sacrifice was supposed to be a one off event. The sacrifice of the Mesoamerican gods is something that must be repeated in perpetuity. The sacrifice of the gods is part of a wider, cyclical cycle.
4) Jesus' sacrifice was the sacrifice of an individual, while the sacrifice of the Mesoamerican gods was a collective event. The method was also different (crucifixion vs heart extraction)
5) For Christians (though speaking for all Christians is fraught with dangerous assumptions) the sacrifice of Jesus is an expression of his love for mankind. For Mesoamericans, the sacrifice of their gods is more about the cycles of nature, of creation, growth, death, and decay.
6) The beliefs, rituals, and behaviours which stem from these events vary considerably in their practice, theology, connections, and values.

I'm not sure what else can be said without picking a specific ritual to explain.