> 414a. N. is as that which dawns, which dawns,
> which endures, which endures.
> 414b. The doers of evil shall not be able to
> 414c. the favourite place of N. among the living
> in this land for ever and ever.
1702a. To say: N., stand up for thy father, the Great One; be seated for thy mother, Nut.
1702b. Give thy hand to thy son, Horus; behold, he is come; he approaches thee.
The king as the water stands for his father (the earth) and thereby sits in his throne in the sky. His hand is his ability to act at a distance and he thereby draws his son (the stones) to him who approaches.
There are rules of grammar that hide this obvious meaning. Sentences are always from a specific perspective. Sentences can use only a single term from the category of words that define the subject (scientific terms). Deviation from these rules results in the ability of each listener to take a different meaning.
We are simply "reading" it wrong. Ask yourself how these people could be so confused that they didn't know whether their dead king should stand or sit. How does giving your hand to your son allow him to approach?
We are imaging these people were confused, stupid, ignorant, savage, and primitive. The reality is they always just meant exactly what they said. From one perspective the dead king is the pyramid itself but many perspectives exist. "The king rests in heaven as a mountain and as a support" but he is also the "son of the earth"; the son of a great one and his mother the sky who lifts him to heaven.
How ironic that they always made perfect sense but we who understand as we choose to understand don't understand a language that is expressed in terms of reality and as tautology. We are truly homo omnisciencis. We can understand anything except a logical language.