Thinking "Mythically"

 I am exploring myths and their function in a book by G.S Kirk, called The Nature of Greek Myths (1974). Kirk was a Greek scholar who not only outlined the meaning of Greek myths, but also talks about the function of myths. There are several theories about myths (what Kirk calls "Monolithic Theories") which operate on different levels to describe what they are, their function in a society, and (perhaps more importantly) how to read myths. Many of these interpretations seem familiar to me, because I encountered them before in my early years. For instance, I recall reading in science textbooks this idea that myths are attempts to 'explain' natural phenomena, such as how the wind and earth came to be formed, prior to inductive reasoning. This way of reading myths treats them as signs for 'literal' events on earth. Related to  this theory is the 'personification' theory, which proposes that myths personify natural events, thus reflecting or projecting  human nature onto otherwise natural events.
        Kirk also refers to another model proposed by Malinowski (see p.59), which states  that myths codify social and moral codes that are upheld in society, similar to a 'charter'. This is similar to the structuralist view which tries to look at religion in an entirely functionalist way: to use a crude example, the idea that "Hell was created by people so that there would be fewer criminals and more fear of the law".  Rather than interpreting myths in terms of inner meaning, this perspective turns it inside out to see how the myth functions as a way of enforcing social norms.
     Kirk is especially skeptical of the view that myths are representations of psychic contents--an idea that has become quite popular with psychologists like Jung. Kirk doubts that there are universal archetypes that are common to all minds. He suggests that there may be a lot of generalization about cases to fit the mould of the archetypes, and even wonders whether the element of 'sacred' or 'divine' nature really applies to all myths after all (p.78-80). I think Kirk is bringing up important issues of whether it is ever a good idea to try to reduce a term such as 'myth' into a single salient form, such as 'the sacred' or 'the divine'. Instead of trying to simplify or reduce all myths into a common theoretical meaning, he explores the grey areas and tensions between competing discourses on what these myths involve, showing that each has its strengths and sticking points.
      This subject fascinates me because recently, I have been thinking about the relationship between magical or 'supernatural' imagery and spiritual texts. In the chapter on "Bodhisattva Who Hears the Cries of the World", in Surangama Sutra, the reader is entreated to descriptions of a being, Avalokitesvara, whose compassion and enlightened nature can save beings from seemingly impossible predicaments. Avalokitesvara can manifest himself in an infinite number of forms, according to the needs and dispositions of people. Some of the descriptions in the Sutra are quite amazing. Because of his enlightened nature, Avalokitesvara is said to be able to avert flooding, attack by knives or even fire. Read literally, these verses sound miraculous, and make it appear that Avalokitesvara has magical powers to save all beings in any predicament. But when I understand the text on another level, it represents the power of the mind to overcome fears by letting go of attaching to self and the body. While some might take it to be that Avalokitesvera works by 'changing the laws of nature' through miraculous cures, others might say that the text represents a state of mind that isn't fettered by material dangers or bodily harm. It may be that those who recite Avalokitesvara's name are saved precisely because they shift their attitude away from fear and toward a sense of love and devotion. Rather than being saved by 'magic', they are saved by their own attitudes and states of mind inspired by Avalokitesvara.
      So, which is the 'best' way to read these incantations?  Are they to be read literally as the miraculous powers of an enlightened being? Or metaphorically as the power that all minds possess to shift their perspectives and lessen attachment? Similar to Kirk's take on mythologies, I am going to say that both interpretations have a value, and don't need to monopolize the others. While it's important to acknowledge the way stories represent the powers of mind itself (taking a psychological approach), it seems equally vital that stories remind us of those powers and give them a concrete representation which serves as a pointer or a symbol. Without these symbols, it is easy to be cast adrift on the ocean of our thoughts.

Kirk, G.S. (1974) , The Nature of Greek Myths. London: Pelican