atul.seth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I am very interested to seek a line of
> confirmation from you whether the Pyramid texts
> make any reference to meditation.
>
> The science of meditation is naturally designed to
> shut down the sensory faculties and make contact
> with the underlying reality by achieving a state
> of resonance in the mind field.The mind is
> 'stilled' by temporary shutdown of the senses.
> When it is 'stilled" the underlying universal
> energy field induces the mind to resonate with it.
> At this stage, what one meditates on whether
> visual or sound, information transfer takes
> place thru resonance and we understand it. This is
> one of the meaning & objective of meditation.

I tend to get in the habit of thinking of the ancients as animals and this is not only incorrect but it would be just as insulting to them as thinking of them as stinky footed bumpkins as Egyptology does. We are a force of our own knowledge whether derived indirectly from ancient science as religion or indirectly from reality itself as modern science. The ancients were a force of nature and an arm of nature itself. We don't care about the future past the next quarterly results or the next election but they were virtually obsessed by the success of the species. We don't care about history except to know there were an infinite number of stinky footed cultures dragging stones up an infinite number of ramps. They were intimately familiar with 40,000 years of human history as recorded in the stars themselves. It's their relationship with the present, consciousness, which is somewhat enigmatic. It is difficult to see what their thinking was like from our perspective.

Meditation and its benefits likely arise principally from complex knowledge which is caused by complex language. Animals have relatively little neeed for meditation because they have relatively little complex knowledge to sort out by thought (probably). But ancient man had a great deal of knowledge so it would seem meditation would be required. Part of understanding nature was to understand man. This is greatly complicated however by the fact that ancient man coundn't understand the nature of language and human progress. We can't see it but they couldn't understand it because they had a "natural language" and couldn't experience thinking in it. They even said as much when they said "thot had no mother". That is that human progress had no feminine cause. The feminine cause, of course, in their language was "language". We can understanbd the concept of language causing human progress, but most tend to reject it in favor of religion, science, trial and error, intelligence, opposable thumbs, or some other less defined causation. The reality is now and always has been that progress is caused by the ideas of individuals expressed in (by) language. Indeed, this applies to all animals and likely all life.

It's quite apparent from the rituals we call the Pyramid Texts that they had a consciousness and thhat they were aware of it. This leads inexhoribly to meditation. That their knowledge was complex suggests different types and levels of such thought. That they were closely attuned to their nature and their senses suggests that they attained some rather deep understanding in some areas. Unfortunately either the PT is mute on most of this or I've not observed it. There are some tantalyzing lines suggesting they were well aware oif their thought processes if not the mode of their thinking.

232a. It is he who is come against N., (though) N. does not go against him;
232b. the second moment after he saw N., the second moment after he perceived N.

That an agent reacts a "second moment after perception" clearly is a vulgar expression for the suppression or abeyance of the "natural phenomenon of instinct". The fact is that animal behavior is usually instinctive so if humans had to specifically exclude the concept of "instinct" in communication then they were hardly animal-like all the time. I believe that when we talk principally as a function of habit or to merely pass the time the activity is largely on the level of "instinct". A person talking on a cell phone will usually slam on the brakes right before plowing into something as instinct. Their speech required a great deal more thought to compose and understand but they'd still have memorized and habitual speech patterns and some sloppy listening habits.

Much of this is simply going to be have to put together through further deduction and discovery of more referents. There's a tremendous amount of work to do here just to identify what of Sanscrit and other ancient writing is directly or indirectly related to ancient science/ language. I believe that even with the information currently available that ancient thinking and language can be reassembled but before we can evenachieve this the writing will provide clues to vastly more and vastly more important source materials and that modern science can find data that will help soirt everything out.

This might not happen as long as there "exist" an infinite number of ramps.