In Hellenic cosmology we basically speak of two Floods: one perhaps more archaic, the ogigio Flood; and perhaps a more recent one, that of Deucalion and Pyrrha. Plato also tells of the Atlantean Flood, which has parallels in the tales of the Mexican Aztecs, the Costa Rican Maya and the Peruvian Incas. Indeed, the Amerindian traditions more explicitly place a Flood at the end of each cyclical era, the prospect of which unequivocally recalls that of the archaic cosmologies of the Old Continent.
di Joseph Acerbi
Taken from «Algiza» n. 9, pp. 10-13
(This version was published without notes)
cover: Antonio carracci, Deluge, 1618
In Hellenic cosmology we basically speak of two Floods: one perhaps more archaic, the Flood ogigio; and perhaps a more recent one, that of Deucalion and Pyrrhus. Plato also tells of Atlantean flood, which has parallels in the tales of the Mexican Aztecs, the Costa Rican Maya and the Peruvian Incas. Indeed, the Amerindian traditions more explicitly they place a Flood at the end of each cyclical Era, the prospect of which unequivocally recalls - apart from some important indigenous variant - that of the archaic cosmologies of the Old Continent.
Mesopotamia in turn deals with the myth of the Flood in theEpic of Gilgameš; when the eponymous Hero meets Utnapištîm, the Old Man who lives on an Island beyond the Ocean of Death. To lead him there is Urshanabi, a figure of "Nocchiero" - similar to that of Charon - that Gilgameš has the opportunity to know only after having left the "Garden of Earthly Delights". Utnapištîm tells him the story of the Flood, being the Hero in search of the secret of Immortality; mysteriously hidden secret, as it will later become clear, in a hidden "Plant" defined as "Old, rejuvenate!" and grew up on "Bottom of the Ocean". The pilgrimages and mythical encounters of Gilgameš; they take place, as the Gaster teaches us, according to the well-known formula of fairy tales “Old, older, very old”. Usually this type of narratives - we find similar ones as well in the fairy tales of Celtic origin of our local folklore - constitute the vulgarization of initiatory stories concerning direct journeys to various paradisiacal locations (Palaces, Islands, Mountains, Gardens, etc.); actually expressions of goals that have not only a spatial but also a temporal value. Or, to explain us better, the traveler (that is, the initiate, seeker of the secret of Immortality) always ends up in the course of his wandering to reach the Heaven on earth and, sometimes, to a higher beyond mundane goal; or even al Heavenly Paradise. For this reason, his journey is in truth aimed back in time, each stopping place thus representing a particular cyclical period that has elapsed.
In the case of Gilgameš, however, the story is rather complex, and it is not easy to understand the subtlest nuances in the context of the Epic. However, as far as we are concerned here, it is said that "The Island in the middle of the Ocean of Death" is located in the Far West, at the "confluence of two Oceans". The episode of the Flood, for its part, unfolds according to the usual directives: a god (in this case Ea, Lord of the Waters, completely similar to the Hellenic Zeus) warns an old sage (cf. Functionally Utnapištîm with Noah, Deucalion or Manu Satyavrata Indian) to build a 'Ark (hermetic symbol to indicate the Zodiac) to save oneself from the imminent flood (which in alchemical language represents the malefic influences, i.e. the so-called "Corrosive Waters" Of the mind). And these, navigating over the "Waters of the Flood", in the manner of one Yogi sailing on the intimate sea of passions, finally manages to save himself and reach a mountain; after which the Earth will be repopulated again, that is, out of metaphor, his soul will be regenerated in the Spirit.
The geographical position of Utnapištîm Island, however, teases a comparison with Platonic Atlantis. But the account of the Hellenic texts in this regard (cf., for example, Tim. - III-XII) has a historical, not mythical character; so that the comparison is extremely dangerous and difficult. However, the fact that Plato places cosmological considerations alongside his narrative helps us. In another dialogue (You criticize.- v. 112 / a) the Greek philosopher states that the enormous flood, which together with earthquakes and torrential rains destroyed Atlantis, "was the third before the Deluge of Deucalion". At first glance, it would seem logical to give the phrase the sense that first the Atlantean Flood took place, then two others (including the object, perhaps) and finally that of Deucalion.
If so, however, the doctrine of the Sevenfold Conjunctions and that of the Cycles related to them - which India calls "Avataric" - of 6.480 years would not agree with the data available to Plato. Or, while admitting a direct relationship between diluvial events, sevenfold conjunctions and hexamillennial cycles, the Atlantean Flood would still have to be moved further back in the course of the Aeon; which is contradicted by the You criticize. - III.108 - and, precisely, from a passage from which it would be legitimate to deduce that the ideas of the Athenian philosopher were generally in agreement with traditional Indo-European and non-European cosmological speculations, apart from some small calculation errors. The chronological reference of which Plato speaks (9.000 years before the millennium of his contemporaries - this would be the distance of the mentioned event) is a generic reference, to be understood in the sense that the event had occurred 9 millennia earlier; that is, according to the current dating, in the eleventh millennium BC. the EV The astrological calculation gives exactly the date of 10.960 BC, cyclical expiration of the "Flood of Water". Tim. - III.23 / ab specifies that the Greeks remembered in their memories only the last Flood, of Deucalion and Pyrrha, but that many others had occurred in more remote times. Not only that, but he adds that this type of phenomenon would have occurred "again in the usual interval of years", thus showing us that it was not a question of fairy tales - as unfortunately many from then until today have assumed - but of "true history" ( ibîd., IV.26 / e). If we then realize that the theory of Magnus Annus (literally "Perfect Year") and that of the Planetary Conjunctions are clearly set out in the same writing (ib., XI.39 / ce), it is no longer allowed to doubt the fact that the Atlantean Flood was the last actualization in time of the "Flood of Water" known from ancient astrological speculations; in short, the one preceding the Deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha, and can be placed in the XNUMXth millennium BC
What will it mean then as previously reported (Crit. - v.112 / a) about the "Third Flood"? Plato, immediately after the passages just analyzed, declares in Tim. -XII.39 / e-40 / a that "Quattro Stirpi" (one of which heavenly and divine, a second winged and aerial, a third aquatic and a fourth pedestrian and earthly) they were created by Divinity. That these are not biological issues is evident from the tone of the dialogue. Let us also analyze the continuation of the Platonic passage indicated above (XIII sgg), in which it is pointed out that from Uranus the Ocean is born; from Oceano Cronus, from Cronus Zeus and from these other "Minor Sons" (= Apollo, Artemis, etc.). The "Bloodlines" are, in this circumstance - it seems to us - the main divine genealogies, strictly connected to the cyclical Ages. There is no need to dwell on this problem. But it's obvious if nothing else Floods, Planetary Conjunctions, Mythical Ages and Divine Generations are absolutely related topics.
Our hypothesis is then that the "Third Flood" before the Deluge of Deucalion must necessarily be interpreted as the cataclysm, obviously of astral origin according to traditional knowledge, which is said to have shocked the globe at the end of the Fourth Great Year (cf. with S. Mahâyuga); this cataclysm coincides perfectly with the one through which it would have ended when the cosmological doctrine would have ended Hindu the VIII Avataric Cycle, which being of 6.480 years (exactly half of 12.960, which is the duration of a whole Mahayuga), constitutes the second part or final section. In short, with the event that would have marked, on the basis of the Hindu (Puranic) doctrine, the end of Balarâma cycle; mythical figure almost coincident, from an avataric point of view, with that of his brother Krishna in the guise of Gopala ("Shepherd of cows"). See in Vi.P. -v.10-1 sgg the raising of Mount Govardhana by Krishna to protect the shepherds from Flood unleashed by Mahendra, out of spite against them, due to the abandonment of the worship of this god in favor of that of Krishna himself.
We must still understand, however, about the "Third Flood" of the Platonic "Critias", the real reasons for this definition. It would seem, in the first instance, to have to interpret the intermediate Deluge between the Atlantean and the deucalionic one as a minor event. But, we honestly confess that the hypothesis absolutely does not convince us. At this moment, however, we have no better explanation to offer. However, we are personally convinced that Plato, or the informers of these, about the definition of "Third Flood" made some confusion between the truly Atlantean Flood, known as such only from an Egyptian source but according to us actually corresponding to the Noaic one, and the Subsequent Deluge of Deucalion. The three hypothetical "Floods" they appear effectively distinct, at first glance, in the traditional context; it is however legitimate to argue that they are to be reduced to two on a chronological level, unless the order supposed by Plato is reversed between the "Second" and the "Third Flood" (that is, between the Atlantean and the Ugly Flood). Conversely, we can assume, and this is our personal opinion, that: a) the Atlantean Flood was the event placed at the end of the VIII "Avataric Cycle" and occurred in the Western Ecumene, whatever you want to call this mysterious Atlantic Land; b) the happening today that sealing the "IX Cycle", linked to the Northwestern Ecumene.
The researches of Eng. Happy Vinci, if they really have historical bases, that the A. moreover, he himself invites us to find, seem to indirectly support the second hypothesis we formulated. In this case, the ogigio Flood and that of Deucalion would be duplicates of each other; the thing could be quite possible, given that the epic traditions of India tell of a simultaneous cataclysm occurred in Bharatavarsha (the "Country of Bhârata, that is to say the homeland) and having as its epicenter Dvârakâ, the main island of a mythical archipelago of the Arabian M. (original seat of Krishna).
We have tried elsewhere to demonstrate how the aforementioned Flood of Dvârakâ constitutes an Indian parallel - with confirmation in the Sumerian-Mesopotamian mythology - of the Aegean-Cretan Flood of Deucalion. It is therefore probable that the ogigio Flood represents the heroic-Achaean version, according to the conjectures of Vinci, of the same cyclical catastrophe recorded in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the western area of the Indian Ocean. There are, we believe, no other more reasonable explanations to offer. Pure the Deluge Noaico, and perhaps even that of Gilgameš, would basically seem to confirm this personal supposition of ours; as they clearly trace in the features, from a chronological and directional point of view, the Flood that would have caused the end of Atlantis according to the Egyptian testimony, collected by Solon and transmitted to posterity by Plato.
