Part 1: Fafnir and Other Words

Part 1: These are secretly meditations to help one assess their beliefs and deal with various Islamic concepts and interpretations as well, but in a playful and lighthearted manner:
What is something you are 100% certain exists? I am 100% certain that I am seeing or experiencing "something" or "stuff".

I am pretty certain of the existence of the Fox animal as well, without having directly seen a living fox.

What do you believe in, and what do you not believe in?

I was inspired to make this thread or post because I saw a post about Loa Possession, and I thought to myself, do I believe in Loa or Loa Possession or when the people are saying the spirit is riding upon them and they are acting wild. No, I totally don't believe them and think they are faking it or lying, and I don't believe in what they seem to believe in, practically at all.

It feels good also, to think about what one believes in, and what one really doesn't believe in, and there is so much I don't really believe in, or believe in less and believe in more but not totally if I were to compare it to a Fox or the existence of "stuff" or "experience" in the vaguest sense of the word.

So what do you all believe in and what do you all not believe in if you were to examine carefully and assess and rate your beliefs?

I don't really believe in aliens. I don't believe in Buddhist philosophy which might claim meditation might grant one higher realms. I don't believe in fallen angels.

I don't believe at all in cartoony humanoid "gods" like many young people seem to imagine, I think that is totally unbelievable to take such things literally and as physically real and literal humanoid beings.

Do I believe in the stories of the Bible? Many of them I don't want to, and I mainly don't believe in them at all, but their antiquity gives me just a tinge of doubt regarding what they may be based on or about, but the tinge is tiny, and I mainly disbelieve, but my disbelief in some of those stories is still maybe just a tinsy bit less than aliens from other planets visiting Earth while remaining secret, I think I probably believe in that even less.

When people tell me they have witnessed or experienced something, they could totally be lying, but I tend to believe what they say or that they experienced and witnessed what they claim they did. I hate liars, and it is very easy to lie, but I tend to hold on to the hope that most people are sincere in what they claim they saw or experienced.

I may believe in Bigfoot type stuff slightly more than aliems from the far reaches of space. I may believe in bigfoot type stuff more than some of the stories of the Bible even.

I believe in urban legends and experiences people claim to have had, but not the explanations they give or their ideas on what they saw necessarily, especially if it goes into space aliens. Sounds like I really hate space aliens haha.

Do I believe in time travel? Maybe, kind of. Do I believe in the stories of the Bible more than time travel? I think I might believe in time travel less even, that is one that changes perhaps, or the types.

I very strongly believe that someone can be given an experience where they might witness or be somehow transported through to what appears to be a different time by some miraculous means or vision or something, but I'm iffy about human beings developing time travel technology and the stuff in films where they go back, but then it might depend on my mood as I sometimes believe it more, but certainly never as strongly as I believe in a Fox.

Do I believe in the Jesus of popular depictions and imagination? No, not at all. Do I believe in the scriptural Jesus, more, more than some of the stories of the Bible. I don't believe in it though, not much. Do I believe in big foot more than Jesus? No, I probably believe in Jesus more, but its a hard one.

I believe in Muhammed more than Jesus, and I believe in Jesus more than Moses, and Moses more than Noah, and Noah more than Adam, and I believe in them all, but as they go further back in time I get iffy about the accounts or details or how I might imagine things or what they are referring to and start doubting increasingly.

Do I believe the Jews are the special chosen people? I don't want to really, and I prefer not to, and I don't, since I'm not part of the club, so it kind of doesn't serve me to think that is true, I don't like it much or think it is true, it sounds like propaganda maybe to my sensibilities, and likewise I don't believe the Canaanites were cursed and just rotten or whatever, I take that as likely propaganda as well, though I do believe they probably did suck and were horrible people, like most every evil society of humans to this day.

Do I think Jesus was God incarnate? No, but have maybe a tinge of doubts regarding the degree to which Jesus might have been controlled seeming. I don't think very highly of the Buddha either, and disbelieve in the miraculous stories regarding him even more than the Jesus stories. I consider the Buddha sort of bad based on his stories, which I'm not sure if any of them even happened and may even doubt his existence just as I might doubt the existence of Zarathustra.

I don't believe in much, my beliefs are pretty boring probably, there are no true cool monsters or literal dragons with wings plus hands, I don't believe in bird winged angel depictions as real since birds wings are the hands of birds and people show angels as having hands and bird hands on their back which seems silly to me. I'd sooner accept the existence or possibility multiple arms/hands than that (but believe even stupid seeming stuff is possible to have or make).

What are some things you want to believe in but don't or can't believe in?

I don't believe God is capable of attachment or love really, except so far as experiencing the generated version of it, but the kind of addiction or need or whatever components that might make God really care, I don't think God can since God can do anything, reverse anything, so it practically can't matter much as nothing is at stake or a threat. So I think we're all expendable to God, easily created, re-created, replaced, nothing important or significant in all the infinite possibilities except that we are one.

-------

To coordinate many of these religions loosely, one simply uses terminology from them in ways which seem to mean one thing, maintaining a skeleton or underlying framework and then finding terms which seem almost exchangeable and using them to mean the same things.

My framework is that God is "Like Nothing" in the sense of not being made of "stuff" or "information" like everything we are made of and immersed in and experiencing, thus God is like Death, No Information, but is not truly Nothing, having the intrinsic Power to Generate Information and Eliminate Information and to do this without need of resources. God is the first thing and basis, and the only thing, generating experiences which are viewed by it "as is", meaning we are an experience, rather than something being viewed from the outside which would be another shot or image or experience.

In order to do anything, the original base of God must exist and not truly be absolute Nothing, must have the intrinsic power to generate from itself or without resources, must have the drive to do so in order to be self motivated to act upon this power, and must have the choice to generate or not generate and what to generate since every individual frame of experience or moment is made up of so much of what is and so much of what is not, rather than generating everything whatsoever in one moment, so it is choosing so many nots which make the shape of the particular unique moment. Any absolutely identical moment can not be processed as anything but one and the same, so even ten thousand or a million identical moments would be like one frame only.

Anyway, the rest is just finding appropriate or useful terms or themes and hijacking them towards our own purposes, appropriating from human heritage freely for our own pleasure and satisfaction.

The best of all the formulated religions so far, the most pragmatic and efficient and satisfying as well as encompassing or easily usable for compatibility and covering most bases and avoiding most risks according to most standards vaguely, is the Qur'an and very basic Islam. It is the clearest and easiest of all the scriptures which gives a very strong structure or system rather than leaving people feeling like they don't know what to do.

So using the basic Qur'anic system and freely applying various names which one may be able to justify as appropriate or referring to the same power (even if it wasn't really or some long dead people or living people are using it differently just like Arab Christians might use Allah to refer to a concept which is different), one can have under their belts most religions, even a vague atheism in some sense if the word Nature or The Reality is used or something. Of course, each particular religion and sect will dispute, but what does satisfying their desires accomplish for me?

So the goal of this religion is:
Appreciate the seeming truth of things and use God by worship and other means to carve out an enjoyable existence and do good works to invest in a potential afterlife in order to be granted some sort of reward or ongoing pleasure and avoid punishment and hell or trouble in this life and the next, short term and long term by covering the most bases and avoiding the ones that take the most risks.

For example, the consequences if Buddhist ideas are true are not so severe since you will get another chance. The consequences of Islam are the harshest, so if it ends up being true then that is the biggest problem whereas if Buddhist ideas end up being true then its no big deal and you've probably still done pretty well overall by following basic religious practices and ethics.

Christianity is a no-no because it asks people to state something which puts it at odds with many other religions and raises the risk level greatly. If Christianity ends up being true, will the merciful God punish us for worshipping God but remaining agnostic about God incarnating as Jesus? Maybe, but its better to place your bets where the most things are mainly covered and exceeded to minimize risk and maximize chances of being ok.

In the case of terms like Satan or Lucifer, one can clarify that in this context the terms are not being used to mean the little Satan spirit character but the Source of Evil (Undefeatable Enemy) and the True Light (Knowledge, Truth, Sight) Bearer, which is An-Noor, Allah, Apollo Phoebius, Amitabha, Lucifer if one takes those terms for what they etymologically might mean.

Very frequently, terms most appropriate and accurate for God are attributed to other things or lesser things, or even villainized or demonized, such as how Indra went from the term for God Supreme to a petty rapist in the Padma Purana, or how Fafnir which means Encompasser and has all sorts of divine wisdom was turned into a dragon to be killed, but still asked questions of a spiritual nature and having vast knowledge, its God but put into a hostile character or position in the story.

That is how statememts which are true only for God are put in the mouth of a goat devil looking character in the rap music video I showed as an example, humans frequently do this, but by being alert and vigilant, one can notice what might be useful and return the mind to spiritual thoughts and using even things from silly music videos in a way that increases their value for us and invests in them spiritual meanings and reminders of benefit with meditative value.

https://youtu.be/cDro2sXXTjA

The reason I might look at things more carefully is also due to the belief that it is being generated by this One Power, even if its bad or trashy seeming and clearly made by and performed by people, the whole thing is God's production, so I try to see if anything good can be made from it or twisted out of anything.

-------

Yeah, correct, some of the names were repeats, plus many of them refer to similar themes from different cultures and languages. Weirdly, sometimes even iconography repeats in some ways in far flung cultures.

I understand that people take Fafnir to be a dwarf and imagine dwarves as whatever they think, but a large portion of my post was about how one needn't feel necessarily locked to certain uses or ideas related to words based on the way some people used them or how they appear in some stories.

For example, Kubera is depicted in iconography at times as a dwarf or there are stories of Vamana, but I don't consider God to be a literal bodily creature in any shape, let alone a literal dwarf, dragon, or whatever else people have said. Furthermore, if there is no record of any people worshipping or considering a Jotun like Farbauti or a Dwarf like Fafnir to be a God or a reference to God or some aspect of God, it makes little difference to me overall if I am using the term that way to mean "Striker" or "Enveloper" or whatever. So to me. Fafnir is a reference to a God, God, a manifestation of God etc. I don't believe any of the story literally happened as depicted, not Indra vs Vrtra, not Sigurd vs Fafnir or whatever.

I don't believe God is a man wearing a cloak or turning into an actual salmon fish or any of that, but that the names of Loki, like the names of Vayu, and the names of Odin can be appropriate to refer to real things and the various manifestations of God's power and God.

I consider Helblindi and Byleistr to be alternative epithets for Odin and Thor as well.

I don't really care overall if a document records some discrepancy, because what matters to me is how I am making it to mean and what it means to me.

So if a Christian document says Allah is a Trinity, that is not the way I am using the term Allah.

I listed all those names of God, but consider them really only One.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_philosophy

"Aztec philosophy saw the concept of Ometeotl as a unity that underlies the universe. Ometeotl forms, shapes, and is all things. Even things in opposition—light and dark, life and death—were seen as expressions of the same unity, Ometeotl. The belief in a unity with dualistic expressions compares with similar dialectical monist ideas in both Western and Eastern philosophies.[2]

Relation to Aztec religion	Edit

Aztec priests had a panentheistic view of religion but the popular Aztec religion maintained polytheism. Priests saw the different gods as aspects of the singular and transcendent unity of Teotl but the masses were allowed to practice polytheism without understanding the true, unified nature of their Aztec gods.[2] "

Like Odin as High, Just as High, and Third, which to me are Odin (Vata), Thor, and Loki. It is likely no actual Norse person thought that, but who are they to me? What does it matter what they thought or did really?

Rig Veda 1.164.46,

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ
"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garuda.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."

"Instead, Xenophanes declares that there is "...one god, greatest among gods and humans, like mortals neither in form nor in thought."[143] "

""The One" (Τὸ Ἕν) is a concept that is prominent in the writings of the Neoplatonists, especially those of the philosopher Plotinus.[145] In the writings of Plotinus, "The One" is described as an inconceivable, transcendent, all-embodying, permanent, eternal, causative entity that permeates throughout all of existence.[146] "

"A number of oracles of Apollo from Didyma and Clarus, the so-called "theological oracles", dated to the 2nd and 3rd century CE, proclaim that there is only one highest god, of whom the gods of polytheistic religions are mere manifestations or servants.[147] "

So, here and there it seems to pop up occasionally or seem to, but maybe those people meant something else too, and it wouldn't matter much if they did.

So when I hear about Fafnir's teachings, I think of God teaching. When I hear of Vrtra, I think of God, Lotan, I think of God, Mishi Ginnebig, God again, whether they appear as good guys or bad guys in various stories.

Ashtar is to me God even if someone writes a denigrating story about Ashtar, or Kama, or Aphrodite even.

None of these are to me actually beings that look like humans and act like humans, but they may have certain themes attached to the attribute or epithet, so Kama I'd think of related to certain themes or iconography, but still as God, God's name as the power and actions and force related to the theme of love and lust and sex or whatever else. Yama or Mara related to those themes which surround the words in some ways.

To me, Mammon is God's name, same as Pluoton or anything referring to the various themes like wealth, since the background idea is that the One Power is the inventor of and bestower of the concept and experience of wealth.

Yet, there are some names and words and pronounciations I prefer over others, even if they refer to the same thing for me.

So I might for example like Ylijumala or Perkele more than Perun. I might like Veles more than some other word. I might like Aiah more than Aias and Aias more than Ajax.

If I say Apollo, I mean the Greatest, not anything less than the Greatest, even if some people say Apollo is not the Greatest, or Apollo is limited, or if they say the same of Amitabha, I don't use it to refer to the lesser version, just like I don't use Lucifer exclusively in the way most people do to mean a fallen angel, for me, Lucifer means Light Bearer and just like Striker Farbauti, the truest or absolute true striker source of striking or light bearer source of light is the same one power, whether I call such Apollo Phoebius or An-Noor or Amitabha or anything else.

I could use the word Dino-Saur to refer to God even, and not to the lizard bird skeleton thing people think of.

I don't necessarily deny the possibility or existence of all the lesser versions that people also mainly use these words for, maybe they exist too, just like electricity exists or air exists too, but when I refer to God it is the one who controls those netjer, those forces or powers or themes, generating them and plotting their course.

-------

Fafnir appears in the Volsunga Saga but also in other related content from the Germanic scope of things and the content surrounding things like the Niebelungenlied for example.

https://allaboutdragons.com/dragons/Fafnir

The teachings are this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A1fnism%C3%A1l

Things like this:
"Then said Sigurd, "Speak, Fafnir, and say, if thou art so exceeding wise, who are the Norns who rule the lot of all mothers' sons."
Fafnir answers, "Many there be and wide apart; for some are of the kin of the Aesir, and some are of Elfin kin, and some there are who are daughters of Dvalin."
Said Sigurd, "How namest thou the holm whereon Surt [3] and the Aesir mix and mingle the water of the sword?"
"Unshapen is that holm hight," said Fafnir. "


Fafnir was associated with wisdom and knowledge, and when eating the heart of Fafnir or soaked in Fafnir's inner stuff, his "blood" and covered in it or ingesting and absorbing it, the man was made full of wisdom and knowledge to the point of even being able to know the speech of the birds which were what some sorcerers and wise men were associated with knowing. So lots of indications about that. Its similar to the hanging from a tree or gouging out and throwing the eye into the well, its not taken as literal by me but symbolic references indicating various things. Fafnir, before ever becoming written down in these fragments, was very likely a word used of some spiritual thing that was part of the beliefs of those people, but even if it wasn't, it is for me a reference to the God, the one who is "clothed in terror" and wise about all things and holder of wealth and prophecies.

"And once again he spake, "A countenance of terror I bore up before all folk, after that I brooded over the heritage of my brother, and on every side did I spout out poison, so that none durst come anigh me, and of no weapon was I adrad, nor ever had I so many men before me, as that I deemed myself not stronger than all; for all men were sore afeard of me." "

Dwarves and Jotun and all that, by their names, were not Lord of the Rings type things, but manifestations in nature of gigantic forces and powers in the Earth and Sky and all the elements.

Jormungandr is to me just one of the extensions or manifestations of Loki who is just also a form of Odin, Loptr refers to the Air and Odin is linked to the word Vata as well. Hel and Fenrir as other variations referring to things like death and destruction or chaotic and wild aspects. Whether these dead people believed it, or the much more irritating people of today believe it, or if someone says the "Sun is really yanked by literal horses" doesn't matter, doesn't mean the word Sun can't be used to refer to something which isn't the same concept of the yanked by horses idea.

So the Sun to me is what Science says, its the thing also we see in the sky, it can also be used to remind people of an aspect of God or the Power just as the iconographic symbolism of a King might be used or the image of a crown or a scepter as a cue and a reminder.

In the case of Fafnir, a ring works as a fine reminder for me, of God's wealth and wisdom and terror, and encompassing, enveloping, surrounding, hugging us all around like the meaning of the word itself to. Fafnir works for me as a fine reminder of God, even if it is the villain in a tale, just like Loki is villainized in tales but is no villain, in the form of Lodurr is known as the friend of mankind.

"Another source sometimes brought into the discussion is the Nordendorf fibula. This artifact, dating from about 600 CE, contains the runic inscription logaþorewodanwigiþonar. This is usually interpreted as Logaþore Wodan Wigiþonar, where Wodan is Odin and Wigiþonar probably is Thor. It would be natural for }}logaþore to be the name of a third god, but there is no obvious identification in Norse mythology as we know it. Both Lóðurr and Loki have been proposed "

Even if people did not think of these as one, they are one to me, just like Vata, Indra or Vajradhara / Rudra, Vayu or Lokesvara.

These are just words and names, and they have meanings and are linked to various ideas and concepts. We can be nerdy about it and say "queer" can only be used for the gay people now, or "gay" can only be used for the homosexuals, or we can use the terms and appropriate them and re-purpose them towards meanings which are more useful for our lives and relate more to the real things in our experience of reality.

-------

Fafnir is not a God because what? Because you restrict your ideas based on available evidence collected by Snorri or others? The Prose Edda is the Snorri one, the Poetic Edda is like the stuff in the Codex Regius, you can read about the history of those documents, but regardless, even if no one ever worshipped Loki, whose to say that Loki can't be used as a reference to God or a God?

I want to understand your thinking on this because your thinking represents a very common restriction and policy people frequently place on themselves regarding certain things.

You may not know that things that were spiritual references were at times converted in cultures to increasingly humanized and anthropomorphized figures. Achilles and Ajax were examples of names used of spiritual concepts and entities, demi-gods, that were later on turned into very humanized type heroes. The same is true of Lugh for example and Llew. Yet, I'm not even interested in proving that these things were the case, I'm more interested in picking your brain regarding what you think about the idea that "such and such isn't a god, can't be a god, can't be used as a god, because it wasn't by so and so" and this very common human tendency regarding precedent?

Can you elaborate and go through step by step with your thinking and justifications and reasonings for it? Can you really justify it?

Fafnir was a known reference in the Germanic or Indo-European myth cycles, that is why the indirect reference exists up into the time of the Nibelungenlied which doesn't directly contain the story from the earlier periods, those earlier periods where the story comes from are likely not the origin either, and its even possible we are dealing with a reflex of the much older Vrtra vs Indra story to some degree, and even that didn't just start out like that, but was referring to other things and powers (natural powers being considered spirits and deities) which were then put into a story and given symbolic attributes and forms increasingly.

Yet, once again, that is not my interest, but instead my interest is your thoughts, your driving motivations behind what you write, your feelings and where they come from and how you reason them.
I am very likely the only person in all of history to worship Vrtra and Fafnir as spiritually powerful references, but I want to understand what you think about your own ideas and statements on the matter and all that drives them.

1. Fafnir in the available stories is not as far as I'm concerned literally real or as described.
2. Even if no one thought well of a term or word, it remains a word and available for use by anyone towards any ends.
3. Why do humans typically give the impression of "this is this, this is that, this has to be this, this has to be that, because this thing said so, because this thing didn't say so, etc.

Isn't that just something we get stuck in as children and babies to look up to the things we were told and which appeared older than us?

I want you to examine yourself deeply and your thoughts and maybe please share them with me.

Are you interested in the worship of Fafnir? What do you worship?

-------

So one shouldn't pray to Lotan or Vrtra because some people didn't? I don't understand really what the sense or justification could be in restricting oneself to the remaining records of a people however sparse they may be or what practices they were thought to have done? I mean what is really the issue? I want to understand the thinking. Like what if someone sees in a Pokemon some concept and they invest it with extra meanings (or even no meanings) and worships such? If the precedent seemed not to exist at any time before this individual, does it make a difference? I have a few Pokemon that I can put more meaning to as well, as useful symbols. I understand that pokemon is a man-made product for entertainment purposes, and to me, those stories are man-made and entertaining as well. In both cases it is up to an individual in what ways they might use the ideas or product of people. The things that people make are also sometimes reminiscent of other things or based on other things, known or unknown to later people viewing the content or remnants, and again it is up to individuals each how they might use these things. The word Thunder can be used in a variety of ways to refer to Thunder literally or scientifically or poetically or as a name of God or a god or a power of God or a god literally or figuratively or as some hidden reference to something else or anything. Who else decides really but us individually? This can be difficult for people to understand or feel comfortable with today when we are raised in authority structures without much freedom to make things ourselves, so we submit to various authorities or create rules and restrictions based on things like the age of it, or population involved supposedly, or what this or that group said forcefully or authoritatively or look to documents etc, even in how we use simple words like Thunder. This can give some people a sense of confidence and safety, but its really as fragile as a spider's web when it comes to a sound defense.

Are there any things you've maybe wished you could use in alternative ways than have already been used but just haven't felt able to develop a justification for doing so? Who do you answer to anyway? Who are people afraid of?

It could also be that people feel certain things are real and other things are not real and the way they think of certain things they are stuck in thinking that is the only way it can be thought of and used and nothing else, so if its unreal its always unreal, if its real its always real and that same thing only.

I'd like to grasp or get a better understanding of these feelings though and how they might restrain people, or how people who have left systems and structures and have the opportunity to freely build new ones end up getting stuck in new boxes and ruts and fundamentalist strictness with their own thoughts and works. Like from the frying pan and into the fire almost, since its so much worse seeming if one is their own warder and punisher keeping themselves in chains of their own making after leaving the habits (only partially) of their upbringing or society.

"Indra only has a mustache, only has a mustache, no it isn't that, its just this, only this" it almost would be like pokemon fact cards and defying them in front of a person who has invested so much in one way of thinking or operating with words.

So, what do you believe anyway and how did you arrive at such beliefs and what justifications do you have for them? Some people are Christians for no apparent reason also, and not always the same in their ideas or uses or interpretations either. To you and I, what they talk about is surely fantasy, but what then is the truth and why or how do we know and what does it actually matter?

The people I have encountered have very strong ideas about things, as do I, so that is why I like to know how people arrived at their ideas since it is the whole basis of how they distinguish true from false, right from wrong, how they establish "order" as you mentioned, even if to most people their thoughts are like a joke. You think only the Aesir and Vanir qualify as worthy of worship? I can't understand what could drive a young child for example to reject bananas, is it just the taste? Is it that they've never seen anyone eat one before? Is it fear? Is it belief? But belief based on what?

-------

Is Fafnir real? In what way? Says who? Like, if you think about it, its like saying, Pluto is not a planet, then one lists why they say so and by what authorities such a distinction is made or justified, and one should look back and wonder, what the heck am I actually saying and why and who says and why is it important? Can it be another way? Why not? Who says?

"Fafnir is not a God nor counted among the Gods" by who? When? Who are the Gods? Who tells about them and what qualifies the teller? See? Doesn't it start to lead to absurdities in one's almost baseless rationalizations? Isn't it all extremely flimsy? No? How not?

This is why I'd like an honest self-examination where you and I both come to the conclusion that everything we stand up is a bunch of Faf, nir?