Pyramid Texts for Astral Travel

[cormac mac airt]

I've read them CK (several times over the years) and I can say without any reservation whatsoever YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. And to put it into plain English: only a person as unequipped as you are, having performed sub-standard research on the subject, would use the least comprehensive translation for an ancient text or set of texts. All in an effort to make the claim that, somehow, you are right and everyone else is wrong.

cormac

[cladking]

I've read them CK (several times over the years) and I can say without any reservation whatsoever YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. And to put it into plain English: only a person as unequipped as you are, having performed sub-standard research on the subject, would use the least comprehensive translation for an ancient text or set of texts. All in an effort to make the claim that, somehow, you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Really!

Do you care to be specific on something you believe I've misstated.

I'm pretty good at finding the relevent poems even though google

doesn't work any more.

The only effort is to fnd out how the pyramids were built. I'm not

afraid of the truth even if it's as unevidenced as aliens or ramps.

It seems a lot of people are frightened beyond words that it might

not have been ramps. You can not escape the fact that the literal

meaning of the builder's words are at odds with orthodox interpret-

ation. This is simple fact.

Edited May 14, 2010 by cladking

[kmt_sesh]

So the mainstream theory is that everyone who dies goes to the underworld. But the Pharaoh, using his burial device and the spells on the walls, can prevent this happening to himself and can instead go into space and hang out with the Gods.. right? Is that a fair layman's understanding of the mainstream theory?

That's a pretty good, basic summary of the situation, yes. Cladking has provided you his personal feelings on the situation, but I feel it necessary to provide some balance. Cladking and I are polar opposites. While I have no doubt he is considerably more intelligent than I in certain matters, such as mathematics, I must stress in plain English that he has never conducted proper historical research on this particular topic and what he writes is his personal speculation, not something corroborated by linguistics, philology, or other fields related to Egyptology. I am not a professional historian, but cladking happens to delve into topics I personally have been researching for many years, so I feel it necessary to strike this balance.

As an example, the Pyramid Texts make many references to the Duat, which cladking believes refers to carbonated water. In fact, there isn't even a word in ancient Egyptian that would describe carbonated water. It's certainly not Duat. This is simply the ancient Egyptian word (transliterated dwAt) for the underworld or land of the dead. In fact, there is nothing in the word Duat that would suggest water. It forms part of the word for "to worship"; linguistics have traced it back to its earliest stage as probably meaning "morning worship" (Shafer, ed 1991: 120). This word appears in funerary inscriptions before, during, and after the time of the Great Pyramid, the monument which is cladking's sole focus.

This brings up two other points worth mentioning. One, for cladking's argument for the word Duat to be true, we would have to believe that it meant "underworld" up to the time of the building of the Great Pyramid, then for some reason switched in meaning to "carbonated water," and then for the rest of pharaonic history reverted to its original meaning of "underworld." Such an argument cannot be supported, of course. And two, cladking places great emphasis on his reinterpretation of the Pyramid Texts, but it must be understood that they appear in no discernible context with the Great Pyramid. There is no doubt that some version of these Texts existed in the time of Khufu, the king who was buried in the Great Pyramid; the Texts at this time were probably kept on papyrus scrolls. But the truth is, we have no version of the Texts surviving from Dynasty 4, so we cannot form any solid theory on what they were like in the time of Khufu. They appear for the first time around 170 years later, in the reign of Unis at the end of Dynasty 5.

Now I'm getting off track and am not addressing your points very well, so back we go.

And the Astral theory is more or less saying that the spells are describing the experience the Pharaoh is going to have while he (while living) hangs out in his astral project device, right?

Yes, that is the premise behind the article in the OP of this thread. As I had hoped to demonstrate with some examples in my Post 64, the author of that article, Alison Chester-Lambert, did not present any kind of argument that might withstand even moderate scrutiny. It's bunkum.

So from there, I'd be interested in the spells themselves. To be more precise:

1. Do the spells themselves DIRECTLY reference traditional death and the underworld?

2. Do the spells actually call out the following logical expression: (Normal people go to the underworld but if you use these spells you can go to space)

3. If the above are not true, then mainstream view is getting it's story of the underworld from OTHER Egyptian texts, and are instead are getting #2 by inference across the culture?

So do the spells actually reference the underworld, or is that inferred?

Very intelligent questions, Qwasz.

1. The spells reference the Duat many times, as I explained earlier, but rarely in any point in pharaonic history will you see writings that specifically speak of "death" and "the king" in the same breath. The Pyramid Texts do not dwell on the fact that the king has died. Rather, the spells emphasize the fact that the king will be reborn to life in the cosmos. He is resurrected from the Duat and guided by the gods and other supernatural forces to ascend into the heavens. There are, however, many writings in the Texts that leave no doubt the king has died, even if it's not directly stated. His spiritual "rescue" from the Duat is one. As another example, in a great many of the spells the king is referred to as "the Osiris Unis" or "the Osiris Pepi" (in many translations it's written as "the Osiris N," where the "N" stands for "name"). This reference to "the Osiris" specifically refers to death, because even as early as the Pyramid Texts the king, in death, is equated with the lord of the dead Osiris (Hornung 1999: 6).

2. An interesting observation on your part. The answer is, no, the spells do not tell us ordinary people go to the Duat while the king gets to shoot skyward. This has been discerned through funerary spells in the tombs of private people, most notably noblemen, where the term Duat for "underworld" or "afterlife" can be found even before Dynasty 4. In those cases the god to whom the deceased turned for guidance was usually Anubis, Wepwawet, or another, because Orisis did not yet appear on the scene. But the Pyramid Texts specifically tells us that although even the king ended up there after he had died, his deified fate was to be drawn out of the underworld and raised into the heavens. Most of the spells in the burial chamber and in many cases on the sarcophagus speak of resurrecting the king's soul from the Duat and the offering rituals that would help accomplish that, while most of the rest of the spells serve to get the king up and into the cosmos.

3. Yes, you're essentially correct. The Pyramid Texts when they first appear, late in Dynasty 5, are specifically for the benefit of the deceased king, so those among the private citizenry who have died do not have a place in the spells. The inscriptions in their tombs have enabled us to learn about their place in the underworld.

It is agreed by pretty much all scholars that the Pyramid Texts began as an oral tradition in prehistory, and originally may have been used for the benefit of private citizens who had died. Only later on do they seem to have preempted by the royals. But in studying them, I've noticed how similar some of the spells are in nature and wording to funerary inscriptions found inside private tombs that date to well before the time of Unis, or even Khufu. This is only my personal feeling, I have to state, but I believe the offering formulae, entreaties to deities, and other funerary inscriptions found within older private tombs preserve an example of how the Pyramid Texts were originally used by more folks than just the king. In other words, these funerary inscriptions in private tombs derive from the Pyramid Texts. This is my own speculation, mind you, but I believe it to be true.

I have no doubt cladking will only hate me more after reading this, but again, I feel the need to strike a balance with the things we understand based on many years of committed and diligent research at the hands of many truly brilliant people. I hope I have helped to explain some of the things professional historians can offer us.

[cladking]

As an example, the Pyramid Texts make many references to the Duat, which cladking believes refers to carbonated water. In fact, there isn't even a word in ancient Egyptian that would describe carbonated water. It's certainly not Duat. This is simply the ancient Egyptian word (transliterated dwAt) for the underworld or land of the dead. In fact, there is nothing in the word Duat that would suggest water. It forms part of the word for "to worship"; linguistics have traced it back to its earliest stage as probably meaning "morning worship" (Shafer, ed 1991: 120). This word appears in funerary inscriptions before, during, and after the time of the Great Pyramid, the monument which is cladking's sole focus.

1986b. [for this spirit, who ascends from] the Dȝ.t, (even) Osiris N. who ascends from Geb.

Osiris arises from the earth and his spirit from the Dȝ.t.

1527c. N. was given birth with him by Dȝ.t.

1528a. Thou supported the sky on thy right side, having life;

The pyramid was given birth by the Dȝ.t. The Dȝ.t (Osiris) supported

the sky.

1530c. he descends ---- lord of the Dȝ.t-lakes.

The bull (or, ox) of heaven lowers its horn, so that he may pass thereon to the lakes of Dȝ.t.

The Dȝ.t even makes lakes! The bull of heaven lowers its horns on the

Dȝ.t lakes to accept a load of stone.

802c. The Dȝ.t strikes (takes) thy hand, towards the place of Śȝḥ,

The Dȝ.t can even hit a God's hand.

unless you're careful;

He ferried over the lake; h[e] avoided the Dȝ.t ...

Sorry!!!

This is what the builders actually said rather than what orthodoxy

wishes they had said or thinks they meant.

Translating this word as the underworld simply doesn't work.

[cladking]

Horus is the deity of the land of rainbows which makes him

chief of the D[].t.

5b. I have given to him the Dȝ.t, that he may be chief therein, like Horus, chief of the Dȝ.t.

Osiris is the Lord of caverns and the Lord of the D[].t.

8d. Osiris, lord of the Dȝ.t, N.,

Osiris is the son of the earth and the sky;

8e. the beloved son of Geb, N.,

8f. son of Nut, opener of her body (womb), N.,

Nut is not devoid on Osiris daily and Osiris' passage is a cavern.

1551a. To say: This thy cavern there is the broad-hall of Osiris N.

Men tend to react the same way when they see Osiris.

1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

I'm not just picking and choosing here because the Pyramid Texts

say exact same thing over and over and over in many different ways.

It does not contradict itself. The literal meaning is coherent!

Edited May 14, 2010 by cladking

[kmt_sesh]

1986b. [for this spirit, who ascends from] the Dȝ.t, (even) Osiris N. who ascends from Geb.

Osiris arises from the earth and his spirit from the Dȝ.t.

1527c. N. was given birth with him by Dȝ.t.

1528a. Thou supported the sky on thy right side, having life;

The pyramid was given birth by the Dȝ.t. The Dȝ.t (Osiris) supported

the sky.

1530c. he descends ---- lord of the Dȝ.t-lakes.

The bull (or, ox) of heaven lowers its horn, so that he may pass thereon to the lakes of Dȝ.t.

The Dȝ.t even makes lakes! The bull of heaven lowers its horns on the

Dȝ.t lakes to accept a load of stone.

802c. The Dȝ.t strikes (takes) thy hand, towards the place of Śȝḥ,

The Dȝ.t can even hit a God's hand.

unless you're careful;

He ferried over the lake; h[e] avoided the Dȝ.t ...

Sorry!!!

This is what the builders actually said rather than what orthodoxy

wishes they had said or thinks they meant.

Translating this word as the underworld simply doesn't work.

Nothing in these excerpts even remotely supports your argument, cladking. You're digging yourself in only deeper.

[cladking]

Nothing in these excerpts even remotely supports your argument, cladking. You're digging yourself in only deeper.

1986b. [for this spirit, who ascends from] the underworld, (even) Osiris N. who ascends from Geb.

1527c. N. was given birth with him by underworld.

1528a. Thou supported the sky on thy right side, having life;

1530c. he descends ---- lord of the underworld-lakes.

The bull (or, ox) of heaven lowers its horn, so that he may pass thereon to the lakes of the underworld.

802c. The underworld strikes (takes) thy hand, towards the place of Śȝḥ,

He ferried over the lake; h[e] avoided the underworld ...

Really!

You think "underworld" is a nice clean fit!

"Geyser" is a clean fit, you just can't believe geysers were involved.

[cladking]

1986b. [for this spirit, who ascends from] the underworld, (even) Osiris N. who ascends from Geb.

1527c. N. was given birth with him by underworld.

1528a. Thou supported the sky on thy right side, having life;

1530c. he descends ---- lord of the underworld-lakes.

The bull (or, ox) of heaven lowers its horn, so that he may pass thereon to the lakes of the underworld.

802c. The underworld strikes (takes) thy hand, towards the place of Śȝḥ,

He ferried over the lake; h[e] avoided the underworld ...

When you put these in context "underworld" works even more

poorly and forces a metaphoric interpretation. This is exactly

why a literal interpretation hasn't been considered.

[cormac mac airt]

Do you care to be specific on something you believe I've misstated.

Specific? No, as I don't care to take the time to quote every reference. To sum it up though, EVERY INTERPRETATION OF EVERY UTTERANCE OF THE PYRAMID TEXTs, AND ITS ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GREAT PYRAMID, THAT HAS EVER COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. 'Nuff said.

cormac

[cladking]

Specific? No, as I don't care to take the time to quote every reference. To sum it up though, EVERY INTERPRETATION OF EVERY UTTERANCE OF THE PYRAMID TEXTs, AND ITS ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GREAT PYRAMID, THAT HAS EVER COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. 'Nuff said.

What!?! You want me to repeat it then?

[cladking]

Maybe this will impress you;

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=37992519

If you watch very carefully between about 21 and 26 seconds you

can get such a good feel for what the stones looked like flying

up to and on the great pyramids.

Swallows really do appear to fly almost as though they're being

pulled through the air and the fledglings of swallows look "heavy".

1770a. To say: N. has ascended like a swallow;

1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones,

1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank;

[kmt_sesh]

1986b. [for this spirit, who ascends from] the underworld, (even) Osiris N. who ascends from Geb.

1527c. N. was given birth with him by underworld.

1528a. Thou supported the sky on thy right side, having life;

1530c. he descends ---- lord of the underworld-lakes.

The bull (or, ox) of heaven lowers its horn, so that he may pass thereon to the lakes of the underworld.

802c. The underworld strikes (takes) thy hand, towards the place of Śȝḥ,

He ferried over the lake; h[e] avoided the underworld ...

Really!

You think "underworld" is a nice clean fit!

"Geyser" is a clean fit, you just can't believe geysers were involved.

Um, yes, cladking, you just proved my own point. I know you are unable to see it. If you understood anything basic about ancient Egyptian religion, particularly in the Old Kingdom, you would see how obvious a fit "underworld" is. I was actually thinking about doing the same thing, but you did it for me and proved my point for me. Thanks.

It's not that I don't "believe" in geysers. My personal assumptions don't mean much when weighed against scientific evidence. The evidence is all that matters, which is why historical theories are built from evidence, and there is no evidence for geysers. You yourself have never been able to offer anything of even convincing circumstantial evidence for them. Personal speculation is not evidence.

[kmt_sesh]

Maybe this will impress you;

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=37992519

If you watch very carefully between about 21 and 26 seconds you

can get such a good feel for what the stones looked like flying

up to and on the great pyramids.

Swallows really do appear to fly almost as though they're being

pulled through the air and the fledglings of swallows look "heavy".

I enjoy birds, and that's a fun video, but now you're using someone's backyard video to try to sustain your argument. Or the times you've posted photos of geysers that are not even in Egypt. Do you see the problems inherent in this tactic? You pull random pics and videos but never information scientifically and specifically related to the geology of Egypt. This is not how you defend a position. Would you try to do the same thing in a peer-review environment?

1770a. To say: N. has ascended like a swallow;

1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones,

1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank;

And when it comes to the Pyramid Texts, you follow much the same tactic. Pulling random samples without any observance to their own context serves to make your case only more disjointed and suspicious.

For example, with 1770a (from Utterance 626), the full line is: "To say: N. has ascended like a swallow; N. has alighted like a falcon." Why did you leave off the bit about the falcon? Because it didn't fit with your swallow example? You can't chop a line in half and pretend only part of it is relevant. More importantly, however, "N" stands for the king, and his ascension to heaven is likened to the flight of a swallow. This has nothing to do with stones being raised in construction. (Full page here.)

With 1130a and 1330b (from Utterance 510) you've picked one word out of a long spell (1128a-1148c) as though "swallow" is the only thing of notable reference here. If you note the many references to "form" and "statues," this spell is one of numerous about the funerary statues of the king, their anointing, and the offerings to them. The phrase "...in respect to these stones" is in reference to the statues, not to blocks of limestone masonry. And the opening line (1128a) clearly again states "N," in place of the king's name, telling us this whole spell concerns the king. This, too, has nothing to do with stones being raised in construction. (Full page here.)

You have to observe context. One word out of an entire spell cannot be used to reinterpret the whole meaning. This is not how the Pyramid Texts were meant to be understood.

[cladking]

Um, yes, cladking, you just proved my own point. I know you are unable to see it. If you understood anything basic about ancient Egyptian religion, particularly in the Old Kingdom, you would see how obvious a fit "underworld" is. I was actually thinking about doing the same thing, but you did it for me and proved my point for me. Thanks.

It's not that I don't "believe" in geysers. My personal assumptions don't mean much when weighed against scientific evidence. The evidence is all that matters, which is why historical theories are built from evidence, and there is no evidence for geysers. You yourself have never been able to offer anything of even convincing circumstantial evidence for them. Personal speculation is not evidence.

I did warn you that in context these look even less like the

orthodox interopretation might be right. It wasn't even a trap.

802a. Thou hast voyaged over the Winding Watercourse in the north of Nut

802b. as a star, which ferries over the ocean, which is under the body of Nut.

802c. The Dȝ.t strikes (takes) thy hand, towards the place of Śȝḥ,

[cladking]

Look at post #182 here near the top of the page:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=146503&st=180

This puts them into context. If you try to put "underworld"

in place of D[].t many become nonsensical. It's the same

thing with yeast gas and violent inundation that causes abun-

dance.

The misinterpretation of the Eye of Horus and the obvious

mistranslation of these three key words are why the literal

meaning hasn't been considered. It's easy to see how yeast

gas was missed but not so easy with the others.

Of course you can still claim it's just coincidence that

water fits but the ground on which you stand keeps getting

shakier.

edited to add most of linked post;

#506;

...1101a. Further, to say: Men and gods, your arms under me,

1101b. while you raise me and lift me up to heaven,

1101c. as the arms of Shu (were) under the sky as he lifted her up--

1101d. to heaven, to heaven, to the great seat, among the gods!

This isn't the duat but note that men and Gods are able to access heaven.

1527a. Heaven conceived him: Dw[].t gave him birth;

152 7b. N. was conceived with him by heaven;

1527c. N. was given birth with him by D[].t.

152 8a. Thou supported the sky on thy right side, having life;

1973c. at the wailing of these two spirits

1973d. [for this Great One who comes forth] from the D[].t.

1986b. [for this spirit, who ascends from] the D[].t, (even) Osiris N. who ascends from Geb.

802a. Thou hast voyaged over the Winding Watercourse in the north of Nut

802b. as a star, which ferries over the ocean, which is under the body of Nut.

802c. The D[].t strikes (takes) thy hand, towards the place of Śȝḥ,

1432a. His boat is brought to him by the d‘m-sceptres of the imperishable stars.

1432b. The bull (or, ox) of heaven lowers its horn, so that he may pass thereon to the lakes of D[].t.

882c. who traverses the sky with Śȝḥ, who voyages over the D[].t with Osiris.

1014a. The earth speaks: "The portal of the D[].t (var. ȝkr) is open."

331a. Disown not N., O thou who art in the D[].t; for thou knowest him and he knows thee.

331b. Disown not N., O thou who art in the D[].t; for he knows thee.

331c. To thee it is said: "The damaged."

332a. Disown not N., O bull of heaven; for thou knowest him and he knows thee.

332b. Disown not N., O bull of heaven; for he knows thee.

1676c + 1 (N. VII 709 + 42). He ferried over the lake; h[e] avoided the D[].t

306a. N. rests from life in the West, the dwellers in the D[].t following him.

306b. (Then) N. rises renewed in the East,

Duat just doesn't seem to work in all these usages. When the geysers failed

they still flowed under the ground. Where D[].t was the entire thing from the

primeval waters to the Marsh of reeds the "duat" is what was left after the CO2

disappeared; just a bunch of dead Gods under the ground.

Utterance 670.

1972. To say: The double doors of heaven are open; the double doors of the bows are open.

1973a. The gods in Buto were filled with compassion, when they came to Osiris N.,1973b. [at the voice of we] eping of Isis and at the lamentation of Nephthys,

1973c. at the wailing of these two spirits

1973d. [for this Great One who comes forth] from the D[].t.

Osiris is coming forth from the D[].t.

1974a. The Souls of Buto dance for thee;

These are people reacting to Osiris coming from the D[].t.

1974b. they beat their flesh for thee; they hit their arms for thee;

1974c. they dishevel their hair for thee;

1974d. they smite their legs for thee.

1975a. They say to thee, Osiris N., "thou art gone, thou art come;

1975b. thou art asleep, [thou art awake]; thou art [dead (lit. thou landest)], thou art alive.

If D[].t doesn't fit the definition for "duat" then maybe it's because it

hadn't evolved to that meaning yet.

151a. Śȝḥ is enveloped by the D[].t, pure and living, in the horizon;

151b. So this is enveloped by the D[].t, pure and living, in the horizon;

151c. N. is enveloped by the D[].t, pure and living, in the horizon.

151d. He is content because of them; he is cool because of them,

151e. in the arms of his father, in the arms of Atum.

Over and over it says the horizon is the land up out of the valley. It's

where the "crowns in the water springs in the south of Libya" are.

The Gods are said to be cool water. They are said to be effervescent.

They are said to be water like wine. The D[].t is that water. When the

fizz went out of it all that was left is the duat.

Edited May 14, 2010 by cladking

[Harte]

I have my own doubts about geysers as well, Kmt.

I say if it wasn't ramps, it was probably elevators. Underworld elevators. No, underworld waterworld elevators. With Kevin Costner lookalikes operating them. And the operators served soda water, no doubt. Not scotch and soda, mind you. They didn't have scotch in Egypt AFAIK. Just soda water. So you had to bring your own bottle. And, if you were from Scotland (which at that time was called Laphroaig, if I remember correctly) why, THEN you could have scotch and soda. Everyone else was stuck with sloe gin fizzes. That's why they all tried to make friends with every scotsman they could find in Old Kingdom Egypt. Which wasn't very many, I'm sure you'll agree. Ah, such is life.

Anyway, all this can be found in the Pyramid Texts, if you know what words to insert and where.

Harte

Edited May 14, 2010 by Harte

[cladking]

For example, with 1770a (from Utterance 626), the full line is: "To say: N. has ascended like a swallow; N. has alighted like a falcon." Why did you leave off the bit about the falcon?

No. I don't believe I've ever done this before but didn't

even really think about it. I suppose I left it off because

I couldn't find a video of a falcon alighting. I've seen fal-

cons land on high perches before though and can certainly picture

the ascender appearing pretty similarly at the top of the run.

You're quite right the line shouldn't have been chopped. I'll

look agaian later for a video of a falcon alighting.

You have to observe context. One word out of an entire spell cannot be used to reinterpret the whole meaning. This is not how the Pyramid Texts were meant to be understood.

My post was intended primarily for fun which is why it has the

smiley it does. I simply wasn't being 100% serious. I do believe

though that my meaning is exactly the original intent of the au-

thor.

This is a tough one to follow but here it is anyway;

1128a. To say: It is certainly not N. who asks to see thee

1128b. in the form which has become thine;

1128c. Osiris asks to see thee in the form which has become thine;

The earth (Geb) has taken on a new form. It is the form of the

dead king (the pyramid).

1129a. it is thy son who asks to see thee in the form which has become thine;

1129b. it is Horus who asks to see thee in the form which has become thine.

Horus, as well, seeks to see the form which has become the king

which is an extension of Geb.

1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones,

1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank;

The stones from the quarry behave like statues and like the fledglings

of swallows under the riverbank.

1130c. when thou sayest, "his beloved son is coming," in the form which had become that of "his beloved son"

This is the dead king as a Horus the son of Osiris.

1131a. they (the "statues") transport Horus; they row Horus over,

In a literal interpretation it is the stones that transport horus

rather than the statues. Remember these are stones that behave like

statues, not statues. It's the balance of the stones and the water

which transports Horus. But Horus is the spirit of the entire "Land

of Rainbows" so can assume any aspect. He was appointed to be chief

in the house of his father Osiris. Only Set who swims under Osiris

is distinct from Horus yet he still is a coequal. Osiris who is Seker

in the []nw-boat is the ballast which provides the balance.

1131b. as Horus ascends (lit. in. the ascent of Horus) in the Mḥt-wr.t-cow.

Osiris as Horus ascends in the M[].t-wr.t-cow. The waters of Nun are

funneled to the counterweights.

1132a. The double doors of heaven are open, the double doors of ḳbḥ.w are open for Horus of the East,

1132b. at day-break, that he may descend and purify himself in the Marsh of Reeds.

1133a. The double doors of heaven are open, the double doors of ḳbḥ.w are open for N.,

1133b. at daybreak, that N. may descend and purify himself in the Marsh of Reeds.

1134a. The double doors of heaven are open, the double doors of ḳbḥ.w are open for Horus of the Dȝ.t,

The doors of the ḳbḥ.w ([]b[]w) (80') are open for Horus when he ascends

in the M[].t-wr.t-cow. And he then descends in the counterweight to the

marsh of reeds as Horus of the geyser.

It reads like poetry if you take it literally.

But it's not the way it sounds or the way young swallows or falcons look

that make this of interest. What makes it of interest is that the PT be-

come coherent when seen in this light. Many of the strange things about

this work disappear. My guess is that if someone as knoiwledgeable as

yourself worked on this from this standpoint you would find many things

that support this contention. I believe you'd find this because this was

the original intent of the authors. In order to do this you'd have to

suspend your disbelief for a while and study the actual heiroglyphs.

One simply has to wonder that this work makes sense in this light. Coin-

cidence seems an improbability.

[cladking]

I have my own doubts about geysers as well, Kmt.

I say if it wasn't ramps, it was probably elevators. Underworld elevators. No, underworld waterworld elevators. With Kevin Costner lookalikes operating them. And the operators served soda water, no doubt. Not scotch and soda, mind you. They didn't have scotch in Egypt AFAIK. Just soda water. So you had to bring your own bottle. And, if you were from Scotland (which at that time was called Laphroaig, if I remember correctly) why, THEN you could have scotch and soda. Everyone else was stuck with sloe gin fizzes. That's why they all tried to make friends with every scotsman they could find in Old Kingdom Egypt. Which wasn't very many, I'm sure you'll agree. Ah, such is life.

Anyway, all this can be found in the Pyramid Texts, if you know what words to insert and where.

Very good! You're gettin' it.

130b. the abundance of N. is in the Marsh of Offerings;

130c. his food is among you, ye gods; the water of N. consists of wine like that of Re',

Remember Mercer translated []gb (the violent inundation that causes abundace )

as it seemed to fit so the above really should read;

130b. the violent inundation that causes abundace of N. is in the Marsh of Offerings;

130c. his food is among you, ye gods; the water of N. consists of wine like that of Rē‘,

or;

207 The water of Unas is wine, like that of Re...

This was more like wine.

1723b. when the great bread and this wine-like water were given to him.

Lots of wine

1551c. it raises thee as Osiris N.

1552a. Šsm.w comes to thee, bearing water and wine;

It was even in the sky;

667. To say: Thy water is in heaven; thy thousands are on earth; O ’iśii-ḥȝ!

688. To say: The water of N. is in heaven; the people of N. are on earth. The heart is sad (?)

507a. To say: N. is come forth to-day at the head of the inundation of the flood.

507b. N. is a crocodile god, with green feather, with vigilant countenance, with forehead erect;

507c. effervescent, proceeding from leg and tail of the Great (One) who is in splendour.

508a. N. is come to his watercourses, which are in the land of the flood, in Mḥ.t-wr.t,

He's effervescent and comes to the M[].t-wr.t-cow!!! ...which is in flood!!!

692c. He is effervescent; he is effervescent; Shu, let thy arms be about N.

670b. Horus circulates behind his eye.

Of course it wasn't all wine and gravy;

22a. This is thy cool water, Osiris; this is thy cool water, O N., which went forth from thy son, which went forth from Horus.

22b. I have come; I have brought to thee the eye of Horus, that thy heart may be refreshed by it. I have brought it to thee. It is under thy soles.

23a. Take to thyself the efflux (sweat), which goes forth from thee; thy heart shall not be weary thereby.

23b. To say four times, when thou goest forth justified: Libation; two pellets of natron.

...And imagine what a couple pellets of natron would do in wine or beer

or a scotch and soda.

2031a. To say: Thy water belongs to thee; thine efflux belongs, to thee; thine inundation belongs to thee,

2031b. issuing from Osiris.

Baking soda and soda water are an old fashioned means for cleaning

the ears;

788a. To make a libation. To say: Thy water belongs to thee; thine abundance belongs to thee;

788b. the efflux goes forth from the god, the secretion which comes out of Osiris,

788c. so that thy hands may be washed, so that thine ears may be open.

Libations are the addition of natron which is a sort of baking soda.

So the bottom line is that it wasn't scotch and soda as much as

water like wine and soda. They also drank wine like wine and beer

like beer. They obviously enjoyed cool effervescent water like

wine which they called Osiris.

However some libations were rejected and sent soaring;

127c. The abomination of N. is dung; N. rejects urine.

127d. N. loathes his abomination.

128a. The abomination of N., it is dung; he eateth not that abomination,

128b. just as at the same time Set shrinks from these two companions who voyage over the sky.

Distillation wasn't invented (or at least used) for another 1000

years or so. They were familiar with yeast gas since it was cul-

tured in Egypt as early as 4400 BC. It's just as well since soda

and Laphroaig sounds terrible. Aging probably wouldn't help.

[Doc Socks Junior]

I don't know if you have noticed yet, but the interpretation of someone who has no formal training, and who appears to have extremely fanciful notions (sorry) isn't going to be taken too seriously. Literary interpretation is entirely a discretionary matter, I'm afraid.

[cladking]

I don't know if you have noticed yet, but the interpretation of someone who has no formal training, and who appears to have extremely fanciful notions (sorry) isn't going to be taken too seriously. Literary interpretation is entirely a discretionary matter, I'm afraid.

I'm just reading it. This is what it actually says.

You're interpretation is that they didn't mean what they said.

You can call what they said fanciful notions but tell it to the authors. Oh wait they're dead and everyone thinks they didn't mean exactly what they said. Everyone thinks they didn't mean anything they said except metaphorically.

Jeesh.

[kmt_sesh]

...

130b. the abundance of N. is in the Marsh of Offerings;

130c. his food is among you, ye gods; the water of N. consists of wine like that of Re',

Remember Mercer translated []gb (the violent inundation that causes abundace )

as it seemed to fit so the above really should read;

130b. the violent inundation that causes abundace of N. is in the Marsh of Offerings;

130c. his food is among you, ye gods; the water of N. consists of wine like that of Rē‘,

...

Just one example of an inconsistency on your part, followed by the translation. Mercer does not translate Agb as "the violent inundation that causes abundace." In his introduction (on this page, in the third paragraph under the tiny green "p.9") Mercer states:

Again the same word in different contexts may require varied renderings, such as the word ȝgb which means "flood," "abundance," or "violence," in accordance with the context.

Here is one thing about which Mercer and I are in sound agreement, and it's a point I continually try to drive home. When translating a word, its context is everything. Mercer isn't saying that Agb means "flood," "abundance," and "violence" all at the same time; rather, he's making the point that this word could mean any one of these three things, all depending on how it's being used in a sentence. Translating 130b as "the violent inundation that causes abundace of N. is in the Marsh of Offerings" would be decidedly incorrect, and I'll explain why.

To begin, the hieroglyphs in that line can be viewed on this page, in the boxed grouping second down from the top (here Sethe is showing how the glyphs looked in the pyramids of four different kings). In his translation Mercer went with the choice of "abundance," which is a bit of a metaphorical stretch. The glyphs forming this word--the three at far left in each line in the box, followed by the stacked water ripples--form the word "flood." The Egyptians had more than ten different words for "flood" or "flood-waters," which is not surprising given their reliance on the Nile. The word used in the Pyramid Texts is clearly Agb, which even by then was kind of an archaic way to express the phenomenon.

In any case, this line of glyphs is very easy to translate:

Agb (n) [ N ] m SA Htp

"The flood of [ N ] is in the Marsh of Offerings."

I haven't fact-checked my own translation with Allen or other more modern sources, but that doesn't matter much. What I come up with is very close to Mercer's translation, and he does state in his introduction that one variation for Agb is "flood," which I personally feel he ought to have used. The glyphs make it clear.

Back to your translation, cladking: "the violent inundation that causes abundace." The inscription simply does not say this. For one thing, just like English, ancient Egyptian as preserved in hieroglyphs followed a strict word order, and in fact stricter than is the case in English. Your translation changes the word order in a way not given by the glyphs. For another, your use of the word "causes" does not appear in the glyphs. There is in fact a causative case in ancient Egyptian, and it's quite recognizable in any given inscription, but it does not appear here. Further, there is only one instance of Agb and no other vocabulary to suggest "violent" or "abundance." Either "flood" or "inundation" would be the proper usage.

The glyphs tell us what's being said. Training in hieroglyphs teaches us how to translate them correctly. This must be observed.

[Doc Socks Junior]

I'm just reading it. This is what it actually says.

You're interpretation is that they didn't mean what they said.

You can call what they said fanciful notions but tell it to the authors. Oh wait they're dead and everyone thinks they didn't mean exactly what they said. Everyone thinks they didn't mean anything they said except metaphorically.

Jeesh.

Actually, I don't really have an interpretation of the passages. You know why? Because I actually know when I'm out of my depth, and I stop.

What you believe to be the message of the authors is just that, your belief. You have no legitimate proof of your interpretation. It is getting tiring listening to you inanely repeat "I alone know their true intent!"

Edited May 15, 2010 by socrates.junior

[ShadowSot]

How can you hope to understand a culture if you know nothing of them?

Even for more relatively recent cultures, like Greece or Rome, you have to know the elements of the culture itself to make sense of their actions.

[cladking]

Actually, I don't really have an interpretation of the passages. You know why? Because I actually know when I'm out of my depth, and I stop.

What you believe to be the message of the authors is just that, your belief. You have no legitimate proof of your interpretation. It is getting tiring listening to you inanely repeat "I alone know their true intent!"

The ancients believed words have power.

Perhaps at one time they did but now they are wholly impotent.

They are misunderstood, misread, and cast off as meaningless. Only

when they appear in books do they magically acquire meaning and leg-

itmacy. How many authors have said they need to rush their books to

print because they want to know what it's about.

Let me start at the beginning here, I have never said I alone know

their intent either in reference to the builders or their words. Ideas

come in entire sentences. If you pick a sentence fragment out of one

then it might be at odds with the idea.

There's nothing wrong with you not having an interpretation of the PT.

It appears exceedingly complicated to most English speakers and it's

very difficult to get a handle on the meaning. Few people even read

it all the way through before they're looking for an explanation of

what it says.

But how can you in one breath say that you don't know what it says and

then in the next lambast me because I'm showing the literal meaning of

what they actually wrote? I've challenged people before to read this

work and then tell me that the literal meaning is necessarily irrelevent.

Just because no one has ever considered that they meant what they said

doesn't mean it's impossible that they meant exactly what they said.

This is the power of words. As a literary device they can stir emotions

and they always transmit information whether the author intends it or

not. Just as actions are based on belief words can lead to action and

knowledge. By saying you're in no position to judge this work you're

saying you're in no position to understand words. You're saying you'll

default to the orthodox position even though you don't know.

I don't know either but I do know how to read.

[cladking]

Just one example of an inconsistency on your part, followed by the translation. Mercer does not translate Agb as "the violent inundation that causes abundace." In his introduction (on this page, in the third paragraph under the tiny green "p.9") Mercer states:

No. I never meant to imply that Mercer translated the word

this way. By phraseology it's apparent I didn't or I wouldn't

have included both forms. You are aware that I've suggested

numerous times that this appears to me to be a misinterpretation

of the word []gb since it is translated variously. It could be

correct but one has to be suspicious anytime so much latitude is

given a translator.

Back to your translation, cladking: "the violent inundation that causes abundace." The inscription simply does not say this. For one thing, just like English, ancient Egyptian as preserved in hieroglyphs followed a strict word order, and in fact stricter than is the case in English. Your translation changes the word order in a way not given by the glyphs. For another, your use of the word "causes" does not appear in the glyphs. There is in fact a causative case in ancient Egyptian, and it's quite recognizable in any given inscription, but it does not appear here. Further, there is only one instance of Agb and no other vocabulary to suggest "violent" or "abundance." Either "flood" or "inundation" would be the proper usage.

I'm always at a disadvantage when it comes to the glyphs since

I don't speak the language. The simple fact is though that the

word "causes" is being suggested to be in the definition rather

than the spelling. A plane is a "flying device which carries

people and cargo" yet the word "carries" doesn't appear in the

spelling. If the definition of []gb is "the violent inundation

that causes abundance" then none of these words has to appear in

the glyphs.

Say []gb to an ancient and just maybe he's picturing the tossing

inundation which brings cool effervescent water like wine rather

than the hot, muddy, schistosomiasis laden water that crept down

the river at high Nile.