|
Post by Charlotte on Sept 3, 2007 8:57:54 GMT -5
Some stand still, some progress, and some way regress Is Uruguay on another planet? A "new" theory by Professor Castillos, of the Uruguayan Institute of Egyptology, "on the evolution of Egypt" - "will be presented in November in Toronto, Canada, at a conference on Egyptology", to which you are cordially invited, Don The theory is that "the roots of the Egyptian civilization lie in the attitude of those individuals, who are called "aggrandisers" by some specialists - including anthropologists, social scientists, historians, and sociologists." According to the good Professor, these "aggrandisers appear in different moments of the Human history and pre-history", such as Julius Ceasar, Genghis Khan, and Stalin." He forgot Hitler. These were power-hungry men "probably due to genetic disposition, who were usually unhappy, and who sometimes caused great tragedies." Does he really compare these men with, in his words "the most brilliant civilization the world has ever witnessed", in which the aggrandisers "had important positions in society." Professor Castillos is not satisfied with theories advanced thus far "how Egypt evolved from a disunited society, comprised of hunters and collectors, to a stratified society." "Castillo calls himself an "office archaeologist," because he studies the subject matter in books, conferences and symposia", and thinks it a good idea "for Brazilian specialists to organize a mission to Egypt to make their own excavations." www.com.br/ingles/noticia.php?id=15771This is yet the worsed I ever read. How can such Kindergarten stuff find its way to a conference on Egyptology? My 4 year old granddaughter has a book on the scarab/beetle of Egypt with better content. Worse yet, the Professor's research will be presented at a conference at the British Museum in London. Charlotte, utterly baffled
|
|
|
Post by ghia on Sept 3, 2007 16:53:57 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte,
Maybe they invited him so they could 'roast' him?
Ghia
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Sept 4, 2007 8:30:29 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte, Maybe they invited him so they could 'roast' him? Ghia Good idea ;D, but there are people still who insist that the Pharaoh's built their monuments for self-aggrandizement, heard I a lady, don't remember if she was an Egyptologist or Archaeologist, declare with a certain zest of knowledge, that the AE built the statues of Ramses at Abu Simbel so large to show anyone coming up from Nubia "who is boss here", in Egypt. Oh well Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Dec 18, 2007 8:31:15 GMT -5
Good Egyptology Don Baron I have been following your progress on the Giza Geometry, it is the drawing of "Finally The Eureka Moment", which left you speechless, the one where you circled Khafra's Pyramid, that rang a bell in me. I couldn't make the picture show again, and wondered if you would be so kind as to posted here for me to see it and and add my thoughts. I find it marvelous that your daughter works with you Thanks and much love Charlotte PS The Tree of Life superimposed on the GP, by "motex33", is marvelous.
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Dec 19, 2007 7:13:34 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte Strangely it is always around Christmas time that these ideas flow into and through me. Maybe I am in tune with The Winter's Solstice ? Maybe all humankind is as well. Anyway these newest theory of mine still needs some fine tuning as the math does not seem to want to work but the aesthetics are marvelous indeed. Here is the image requested and a link to my whole image library at Imageshack A Eureka MomentMy ImageShack Gallery And yes eldest daughter is always asking me ... "What's new" so I tell her and she has a look. Sadly Geometry is all Greek to her. However she is leaving her teenage years behind her as we celebrate her 20 years of existence today ! Happy 20th Angelica !!! In Love and The Light Don Barone and if I should get carried away and forget may I wish all of us here a most joyous Christmas and a safe and enlightened New Year.
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Dec 19, 2007 8:18:34 GMT -5
Thanks for turning on another switch Charlotte And the angle checks in our favourite painting of Celestine as well. Will post that later this evening after the festivities Cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Dec 19, 2007 8:21:11 GMT -5
Maybe the angle of The Star of David should be ... 51.84 degrees ? Hmmmm ... will check that as well when I get home and see what configuration that might bring Cheers again Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Dec 19, 2007 8:28:49 GMT -5
Click on thumbnail for HUGE image Will think on it more later ... cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Dec 19, 2007 8:47:23 GMT -5
best db
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Dec 19, 2007 9:08:51 GMT -5
Just checking if you check in "regurarly" First, Happy Birthday Angelica, and 80+ more in health, in living a good and fulfilling life, taking the up's and down's in stride, and courageously keep walking even if the wind is in your face, it's a women-warrior-nature-thing Love Charlotte Thanks Don, if these ideas come more on Christmas than other times, maybe the "Christ" in you is stirring to be born, and observing that bussling people in stores are unusually friendly, happy and kind at the moment, I could agree that "Christian humanity" is in tune with this time-honered idea of "the son/sun" being born. And this ties in with what I perceived in looking at your "Eureka Moment" of Khafra "appearing like the sun" as told in the story of the self-generating scarabea in a dungball, old and decaying matter but extracting what is yet usable as nourishment, of its own making, and coming forth "re-born." (I also see the sublime painting of the "Book of Caverns" in my minds eye.) It's a marvelous example of alchemical transformation physically, and spiritually because it happens in "darkness", objectively observed by no one. In the secret process of spiritual (straining toward....) transformation the physical body gets healthy and energetic. Thanks again for showing this from another side. As JohnMD was wont to say: Brilliant, these ancient Egyptians!!! Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Dec 19, 2007 9:15:07 GMT -5
Just saw the other images, carry on Philosophy is discovering things together! Have a great party. Cheers to Angelica Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Dec 19, 2007 22:09:21 GMT -5
Cheers db PS: Party was very good.
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Dec 20, 2007 10:13:15 GMT -5
Hi all ... As much as I wholly believe that the Giza Plateau may be "Solomon's (The Sun and The Moon) Temple and that if we discover where the Holy of Holies is within it we will discover the 'SECRET", at the present time I am having a bit of difficulty making the geometry fit precisely and to me if it doesn't fit precisely then it is incorrect. Will post new images when and if errors found are corrected. My next project will be to find the perfect union of a pentagram and hexagon (as found by David Woods at Rennes le Chateau) here at Giza. cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Dec 20, 2007 10:18:40 GMT -5
Just a note here. The angle within the 15 point Pentagram is 360/15 = 24 degrees while the "perfect angle" I "discovvered" in the painting which started all of this was 24.09 ... Close but is it close enough to mean something ?
cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Dec 20, 2007 12:56:22 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte, Daz, Bernhard et al. Interesting developments ... Here is the latest and corrected version of the Giza hexagon. It is really quite interesting and for now I will just let you all have a look and ponder it before I break it down and explain everything although really it is self explantory. Yes Charlotte whoever designed this was quite brilliant but why this offset of 9.75 cubits ? I had the same dilema when working out my earlier theories. cheers and enjoy and then this one ... Best Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by martsego on May 31, 2008 1:20:56 GMT -5
Some stand still, some progress, and some way regress Is Uruguay on another planet? A "new" theory by Professor Castillos, of the Uruguayan Institute of Egyptology, "on the evolution of Egypt" - "will be presented in November in Toronto, Canada, at a conference on Egyptology", to which you are cordially invited, Don The theory is that "the roots of the Egyptian civilization lie in the attitude of those individuals, who are called "aggrandisers" by some specialists - including anthropologists, social scientists, historians, and sociologists." According to the good Professor, these "aggrandisers appear in different moments of the Human history and pre-history", such as Julius Ceasar, Genghis Khan, and Stalin." He forgot Hitler. These were power-hungry men "probably due to genetic disposition, who were usually unhappy, and who sometimes caused great tragedies." Does he really compare these men with, in his words "the most brilliant civilization the world has ever witnessed", in which the aggrandisers "had important positions in society." Professor Castillos is not satisfied with theories advanced thus far "how Egypt evolved from a disunited society, comprised of hunters and collectors, to a stratified society." "Castillo calls himself an "office archaeologist," because he studies the subject matter in books, conferences and symposia", and thinks it a good idea "for Brazilian specialists to organize a mission to Egypt to make their own excavations." www.com.br/ingles/noticia.php?id=15771This is yet the worsed I ever read. How can such Kindergarten stuff find its way to a conference on Egyptology? My 4 year old granddaughter has a book on the scarab/beetle of Egypt with better content. Worse yet, the Professor's research will be presented at a conference at the British Museum in London. Charlotte, utterly baffled
I´m afraid you got it all wrong...
Since the 1990´s anthropologists have developed the aggrandizers theory to explain the appearance of powerful individuals who could transmit their status to their descendants in early communities in which formerly such aggrandizement was not acceptable.
They were the forerunners of the later powerful pharaohs.
It is a very complex theory with supporting evidence from all over the world and Castillos just adapted it to early Egypt.
So don´t knock him out using your ignorance of modern anthropology as a weapon because it only makes you look bad... He provides abundant references as support for his views.
see it outlined in:
www.geocities.com/jjcastillos/complexity.html
and
www.geocities.com/jjcastillos/early.doc
so at least you know what you´re talking about.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 31, 2008 6:14:40 GMT -5
Hi Martin ...
Another post like that, calling one of our members "ignorant" and it will be your last.
Actually I really don't like the tone of you or the post so why don't we make it your last for a while. Take a holiday.
Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Jun 3, 2008 12:28:14 GMT -5
I can't resist.
Martin wrote:
Since the 1990's anthropologists have developed the aggrandizers theory to explain the appearance of powerful individuals who could transmit their status to their descendants in early communities in which formerly such aggrandizement was not acceptable.
"They were the forerunners of the later powerful pharaohs."
Professor Castillos writes:
"I have suggested that I find the interpretation for the beginning and development of complexity in predynastic Egypt based on the activity of aggrandizers, ... as a persuasive and compelling explanation for this process, based on basic drives that have been present in some individuals in human history.
"It is at least worthy of careful consideration and also of being tested against the extant and further archaelogical evidence for settlements and cemeteries with the purpose of determining its validity for a model that adequately describes the changes that took place in Upper Egypt in the predynastic period.
"Nevertheless, some scholars have not found this interpretation a satisfactory solution for the problem at hand."
Neither do I, though almost surely for different reasons than most scholars.
Castillos bases his theory on "basic drives - present in some individuals in human history", such as Julius Ceasar, Attila, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Pancho Villa, Stalin, and Mao, and if all else fails, bring in "genetic disposition" of "unhappy people" who made themselves happy by tyrannizing others.
"It is a very complex theory with supporting evidence from all over the world and Castillos just adapted it to the early Egyptians."
Indeed, Castillos, with due respect, projects all the complexities of 1990's "modern anthropology" of the rather thin yarn he spins on the predynasic Egyptians, because he was "not satisfied with theories advanced thus far "how Egypt evolved from a disunited society, composed of hunters and collectors, to a stratified society." Both theories are best trown in the Nile, as the present day Egyptians say of something worthless.
First of all, what is complex about a "capable" individual, in predynastic and dynastic Egypt erroneously thought an "aggrandizer", of any community while the rest of the less intelligent people go about their daily business? The capable one administers the affairs of the community, It's natural and called State Craft.
Secondly, how would "future archaelogical evidence from settlements and semeteries" validate the aggrandizer theory? By a bigger and more elaborate house on a hill, or a bigger burial plot and tombstone? Does this mean the person was an aggrandizer? All it means is that this theory ties in with all the rest of how the Egyptians perceived, i.e., making themselves look grand and powerful by propaganda, proving to their people how viral, strong and healthy they are to rule the kingdom some more years. It's pathetic.
Granted, there have been, and are power-crazed people in this world, who also have a purpose, but they all self-destuct in due time, but not one predynastic king or later pharaoh was one of them, except in the thinking and interpretation by the dead letter of our experts.
These kings were more powerful than can ever be imagined by conventional Egyptology and archaeology and anthropology, and any other ology they try to explain them and their cosmic civilization with, because their mind is closed to what they read even as the meaning jumps out in the very words they write.
Look at what Don et all are bringing to the table at the moment, is what you see the work of aggrandizers? It is the work of genius.
Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Jun 4, 2008 9:33:57 GMT -5
To finish, and to make myself look good Professor Castillos writes: "Maybe these ideas can be made more acceptable if I dramatize the process and try to go back several thousand years in time to attempt to convey what might have happened in many places and at different times, when conditions were ripe." In paragraphs 9-23, Castillos describes, supposing himself as "one of those individuals whose main goal in life" was to become an aggrandizer. Castillos says "what might have happened", whereas Martin seems to be sure about the theory, which are the "ideas" of modern anthropology. Professor Castillos encountered opposition from "some scholars" as he noted on the first page, and concludes: "Imaginative? Perhaps, but I see no reason for it not being likely and at least in its broad lines, a reasonable interpretation of how social complexity arose and developed in many parts of the world." I have no problem with the "broad" outline as it is a common sense and natural process as to how a community constitutes itself. "There have been communities in the past that have exhibited complexity without one or other of these characteristics common to the most widely accepted definitions of chiefdoms, but in case of Predynastic Egypt I think that the archaelogical evidence optained in the last one hundred years is compatible with the above outlined interpretation, at least in what concerns developments in the communities that were involved in the process that led to increasing social stratification and to the later pharaonic centralized state." Indeed, archaelogical evidence and Castillos interpretation of predynastic and later Egyptian aggrandizers are compatible, obvious immediately yesterday , after all, Pharaoh is depicted bringing his enemies to their knees and swinging a club over their head, walking on them with their sandals and the rest. "We should perhaps shift somewhat the emphasis from how nature was exploided by these predynastic communities to how human beings were, to suit the rquirements of the emerging elites and the chief or king who represented the changed social organization and was responsible for preserving and expanding it." Let's not shift the emphasis thataway, because "predynastic cummunities" did not "develope" by exploiding human nature. The pre- or dynastic kings never had the "idea" of exploiting human nature, they were initiates with a different agenda. Communities, as Professor Castillos understands them, were incidental to their work, other than having to eat, drink and sleep. The Ancient Egyptians rocked above, and then below. Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by luisvig on Oct 18, 2010 22:17:28 GMT -5
Hi Martin ... Another post like that, calling one of our members "ignorant" and it will be your last. Actually I really don't like the tone of you or the post so why don't we make it your last for a while. Take a holiday. Don Barone I write this with some trepidation because after reading these posts I saw that Martin didn't call anybody ignorant since it is very different saying that you or anybody ignore or display ignorance of some specific subject and being an ignorant person, we can all be fairly accused of ignorance about certain things without this being an insult, so the very supercilious attitude I find here makes me afraid of being threatened for being frank and direct. Through google I have read Castillos' theory and the contrary opinions here. Are any of you professional egyptologists to presume to dismiss and ridicule a theory advanced by a well- established scholar with a world-wide reputation? Don't be offended then if I say that I find his theory quite interesting and feasible. Other previous explanations of how the pharaohs came about haven't convinced me, they are either based on spontaneous decisions by communities or by spiritual or ecological drives, while we can see nowadays in places like Russia and neighbors of the former Eastern Europe in which restrictions on individual growth in wealth and power were lifted and many such aggrandizers have risen very quickly to positions of influence and power there. Just a couple of thoughts that may make you change your hostile remarks about this theory: if it is something so low as "kindergarten stuff" and "the worst" someone has read, or he was invited to be "roasted" as someone else said, how come the British Museum scholars have published his paper online in the BMSAES page? You´ll find it there... Perhaps this theory deserves a more open-minded and balanced appraisal rather than being dismissed in the facile and superficial way I have seen here. The growth of inequality and of the power of hereditary chiefs has been reported in the last few years from many parts of the world by anthropologists, through their many tactics and manipulations of people they have perpetuated themselves and their descendants in power for a very long time, so why ancient Egypt should have been the exception? The presence of these aggrandizers can be detected not only by the funerary remains of themselves and their close family but also in the remains of their big houses and the economic activities under their control as well by the remains of the feasts by which they displayed their wealth and power and cemented alliances with like-minded individuals elsewhere. More recently, the well-documented tactics of Zulu aggrandizers in South Africa by which they weakened kinship links and built up a power base that led to the creation of a vast empire that challenged the British with all their technological superiority throw more light on the subject. Many archaeologists and anthropologists in recent years have advanced similar interpretations to explain ancient social and political change in various parts of the world, so the aggrandizer theory and Castillos' views may have a longer life and deserve more credit and respect than you and others here grant them. Sincerely, Luis
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Oct 19, 2010 15:35:34 GMT -5
Hallo Luis, We are in complete agreement as to the distinction in your first paragraph, and "you must not fear" love that phrase just came to Mind, to be frank and direct but rather intrepidly express your opinion as I do when I think I'm sure about something. I re-read what little I wrote on the subject and not only affirm my point of view, but could write pages adding why Professor Castillos' theory is way of the mark, or simply 'academic', mainly because of not 'hearing' and 'seeing' what the AE themselves say, painted, and built. I don't have to do this, but only quote Martin again: "Since the 1990s, anthropologists have developed the aggrandizers theory to explain the appearance of powerful individuals who could transmit their status etc...." Have developed the theory to explain.... I am not disputing that there were and are human being with "basic drives" or mighty ambitions becoming delusional in due time, but we are speaking of the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancients in general, to whose Wisdom we are gradually ascending, and that certainly not via modern ancient Egyptology, who can weigh, measure, and carbon date, but not interpret the Mind of the Ancients which looks us directly in the face, but which ancient Egyptologists, Anthropologists, and Archaeologists look at obliquely to avoid seeing directly what's there. It's a habit conducive to arguing forever to see who eventually gets the Grand Prize. The aggrandizers theory "is a very complex theory with supporting evidence from all over the world and Castillos just adapted it to early Egypt." Why not? Look at the monuments they built competing who will have the grandest and more importantly the right Tomb their Soul could recognize to come back too. I swear I read it. Museums preserve and publish many papers, and there are many theories advanced by well established scholars with a world-wide reputation, which are either defended or debunked by other well established scholars of world-wide reputation, but the Great Pyramid and Obelisk at Heliopolis stand firm and unaffected, and when the time falls true and we know their meaning, not a Soul will care, or even remember how aggrandizers came about. I note well all you write, in pragraph 6, the Egyptians are the exception, their "Priests" had a plan, it can be followed by their writings, what they built and destroyed, these Magnificent Ancient Egyptians, and "when they wanted to portray the god of the universe, they painted a Star". Sincerely Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by luisvig on Oct 19, 2010 18:00:44 GMT -5
Hallo Luis, We are in complete agreement as to the distinction in your first paragraph, and "you must not fear" love that phrase just came to Mind, to be frank and direct but rather intrepidly express your opinion as I do when I think I'm sure about something. ............... Museums preserve and publish many papers, and there are many theories advanced by well established scholars with a world-wide reputation, which are either defended or debunked by other well established scholars of world-wide reputation, but the Great Pyramid and Obelisk at Heliopolis stand firm and unaffected, and when the time falls true and we know their meaning, not a Soul will care, or even remember how aggrandizers came about. I note well all you write, in pragraph 6, the Egyptians are the exception, their "Priests" had a plan, it can be followed by their writings, what they built and destroyed, these Magnificent Ancient Egyptians, and "when they wanted to portray the god of the universe, they painted a Star". Sincerely Charlotte Now I catch your drift. We are definitely on different planes. You along new age dreamy fantasies and me rather with the more reliable assurances and revelations of science. If we are still "ascending" to the wisdom of the ancients, as you say, you would deny the fact that with today´s technology we could build anything the ancients built, ten times bigger and more accurately, we just wouldn´t bother because of the enormous expense and lack of practical use of such. The ancients achieved things and should be respected FOR THEIR TIME, but they were also more brutal and despotic and I doubt you or anybody in his right mind would want to live that way. We´ve come a long way, baby, I´d say, fortunately, in spite of the problems the world faces today. Before aggrandizers I couldn´t understand the growth of inequality and empires in the past, now it makes sense and the Egyptian pyramids, for instance, reveal not a supposed wisdom and superior soul of the ancients but the power of successful aggrandizers who could put a whole country at their service for their protracted power after death, among the gods, something that today would be so atrocious nobody could possible conceive. That´s part of the progress we have made over the centuries. Today the individual, his needs and aspirations, counts infinitely more than in your beloved and idealized ancient times. Sincerely, Luis
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Oct 20, 2010 12:34:38 GMT -5
In the context of our subject we live on different planes.
I dare any Country to replicate the Great Pyramid.
That world was more brutal and despotic than ours?
We so could go back and forth with our views.
There is an undertone and side thought in your writing.
Sincerely
Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Oct 21, 2010 10:39:29 GMT -5
That is to say, to egg somebody on, to provoke, tease, or encourage.
I too like to speak frankly and diectly to point, and usually polite and respectful, the snooty language I learned from the evidence-ladden debunkers of "new age dreamy fantasies" of people like me. Not too long ago, I heard a modern Sphisticate Host on Radio ask of someone what he thought of "the new age (subdued apologetic chuckle) Zen practices" in the Sports World, and a 1000 other examples of ridicule of "new age" stuff that upsets the published Authors of Peer reviewed Papers, mostly in their dead letter of the word interpretations. I listened to a Programe on Hermeneutics once, Hermes just turned over and went back to sleep. I must say it was on TV.
There is also a distinction to be made between "new age" and "old new age", and naturally highly intelligent plus sterling academic education of the truly Learned versus the Book reading, Exam taking/passing education resulting in mechanical Intellect.
As a New Ager, I agree with 1000 Old Agers, that there is a faculty within us responding to truths when we hear or read such, if it's baloney we don't swallow it, but we have been told for so long that this inborn capacity we have is not to be trusted, we must consult Science if we are to be taken seriously. Considering, you might forgive me when my Feathers are ruffled.
Yea, "today the individual, his needs and aspirations, counts infinately more than in (my) beloved and idealized ancient times". It is why the homeless are laying in the streets shivering and hungry, women all over the world are brutalized and abused and wander the streets with their children, young men and women are sent to war to kill other human beings, and come home half dead, traumatized, often without limbs to a filthy Hospital or having to beg on the streets; we pulverize entire areas of our planet and watch our animals drown in slime and slush; millions loose their homes and all they worked for while our technological savvy Corporations and Banks shamelessly report Billions in profit; ja, we have come a long way....
Tolling for the aching ones whose wounds cannot be nursed For the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones and worse
Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by luisvig on Oct 21, 2010 22:37:15 GMT -5
Yea, "today the individual, his needs and aspirations, counts infinately more than in (my) beloved and idealized ancient times". It is why the homeless are laying in the streets shivering and hungry, women all over the world are brutalized and abused and wander the streets with their children, young men and women are sent to war to kill other human beings, and come home half dead, traumatized, often without limbs to a filthy Hospital or having to beg on the streets; we pulverize entire areas of our planet and watch our animals drown in slime and slush; millions loose their homes and all they worked for while our technological savvy Corporations and Banks shamelessly report Billions in profit; ja, we have come a long way.... Charlotte All those things you mention happened in the distant past (and much worse) but new agers choose to ignore that and believe that they are only today's calamities... It's like the myth of the "noble, ecologically minded savage" and so many others archaeologists and anthropologists have to debunk so at least some people avoid fooling themselves with such fantasies. Those who "loose" their homes better tighten them in their grasp using the welfare money (TODAY'S, NOT THE ANCIENT) government provides to those too lazy to look for work (the movie Precious provides a very common and sad example). Today we can have our own opinions and choose more freely than in ancient times when you showed dissent at your own risk of being enslaved or put to death in horrible ways. Luis
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Oct 24, 2010 12:11:06 GMT -5
I ate my flower and deleted the post, because, as I wrote, the "new ager" thing, "we've come a long way, baby" irritated me, and that I'm not interested in discussing what gave rise to aggrandizers, which, when one has any common sense and some insight into human nature doesn't need much research unless one is a stickler for details and needs to write it out for others to read it out, the noble Savage being another story.
You can't possibly be serious, or maybe you are, what you write about the Egyptian Pyramids and the "Soul" and Wisdom of the Civilization. On that subject I happened to read yesterday a perfect example and thought I post it. It was written, anonymously, by an Officer of "The Learned Pig" The Book is signed
TRANSMIGRATUS
"My second union with the human body brings me to a period of my story where I shall be fully able to elucidate a point, about which the learned world have hitherto been much puzzled and divided. It is touching the exact time the spirit is infused into the body. By some it is imagined to be at the very moment of conception. By others when the mater quickens, and that it is the soul itself that gives vital motion: but both are equally mistaken with those who believe that there are no souls at all.
"This junction, Sir, never happens till the child is fairly born into the world; and the spirit designed for its information is for some minutes before anxiously waiting its forthcoming. It would be offering an indignity to a supernatural essence to suppose that such a union could take place before. Further it is certain that all intelligence ceases from the moment of this union (except in case of death) till what is called reason begins to dawn, which, in fact, is no more than the exertions of the spirit emerging out of long inaction. With regards to brutes, indeed, it is widely different, the souls entry into them not being confined to any determinate time."
The second paragraph describes precisely what the AE set forth concerning this problem, and that is where my head is at.
Some aggrandizers, such it is said of Akhenaton, for instance, he was the humblest and most spiritual of Men, if you read his Hymn.
Regards
Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Jul 22, 2013 8:17:51 GMT -5
Hi Don,
Concerning my comment of waves dashing against the Pyramids, Madam Blavatsky writes:
"One of the books of Hermes describes certain of the pyramids as standing upon the sea-shore, "the waves of which dashed in powerless fury against its base." This implies that the geographical features of the country have been changed, and may indicate that we must accord to these ancient "graneries," "magico-astrological observatories," and "royal sepulchres," an origin antedating the upheaval of the Sahara and other deserts. This would imply rather more of an antiquity than the poor few thousand of years, so generously accorded to them by Egyptologists." Isis Unveiled I, p 520
Who could argue with Hermes, besides there are seashells to be found on the Giza Plateau and encrusted, some partially crystallized, in stones of ruined Temples. I have a few.
On ancient History in general, on the same page, the Lady quotes a Writer of 1875 stating there was "th last and most perfect representative of a race who had, for centuries before Rome was dreamed of, directed the civilizations, the learning, and the intelligence of mankind."
Wouldn't it be logical that there were other great Civilization before the ones we know about? I think they were greater for nearer to the source, when men walked with gods. Mr. Hall taught that Humanity was and never is left without divinely guided Guardianship, as does Shakespeare, Himself such a one.
Further on the same and next pages can be read on "the astronomical erudition of the ancient Egyptians . . . " — to Pythagoras, to Constantine the Great, to "the knowledge of thunder and lightening possessed by the Etruscan priests" to Benjamin Franklin, and so on until one experiences a melt-down.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Jul 23, 2013 8:12:42 GMT -5
Pyramids and Planets
Hi Don,
Differing in context from your rational/ratio research but maybe of interest.
Isis Unveiled I, p 296-7
"According to the Arabian description, each of the seven chambers of the Pyramids -- those grandest of all cosmic symbols -- was known by the name of a planet. The peculiar architecture of the Pyramids shows in itself the drift of the metaphysical thought of their builders. The apaex is lost in the clear blue sky of the land of the Pharaohs, and typifies the primordial point lost in the unseen universe from whence started the first race of the spiritual prototypes of man. Each mummy, from the moment that it was embalmed, lost its physical individuality in one sense; it symbolized the human race. Placed in such a way as was best calculated to aid the exit of the 'soul,' the latter had to pass through the seven planetary chambers before it made its exit through the symbolical apex. Each chamber typified, at the same time, one of the seven spheres, and one of the seven higher types of physico-spiritual humanity alleged to be above our own. Every 3,000 years, the soul, representative of its race, had to return to its primal point of departure before it underwent another evolution into a more perfect spiritual and physical transformation. We must go deep indeed into the abstruse metaphysics of Oriental mysticism before we can realize fully the infinitude of the subjects that were embraced at one sweep by the majestic thought of its exponents."
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jul 24, 2013 20:49:04 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte the wisdom of your posts always give mind to ponder. The last few posts were great as usual but just as usual will require, as a great meal should, time to digest. Love Don
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Jul 25, 2013 6:08:08 GMT -5
Thank you, Don, I enjoy learning new stuff, don't even try to follow yours but get the gist of it. All my Teachers agreed as per the exellence of the Pyramid Builders, how could one not. Best wishes to the Family Love Charlotte
|
|