Chris Jordan wrote:

> I must admit I am citing more mainstream sources, which are
> probably twisted to suit needs anyways.

They are twisted but they are twisted primarily through misunderstanding. The mainstream understands horus only as a deity which was important to the later Egyptians and as such they have a very clear understanding of him, probably. But mainstream never cared at all about such "trivialities" as how the great pyramids were built so never bothered to gain the data that would show the nature of horus changed over the course of the millinea. It was easier to just assume that nothing in the culture, religion, and language ever changed and to study what interested them most; the people. In their dash to knowledge they overlooked the evidence that shows conclusively that they are wrong. Their assumptions are not only illogical and unevidenced but they fly in the face of human nature. They have a kaleidoscopic vision of a few trees and can't even see the forest.

They understand the horuses in terms of the book of the dead but not in the terms of the author intent of the PT. They understand what horus evolved into but not what he was initially. The assumptions prevent them from seeing the original conditions or the conditions that prevailed at the time of great pyramid building. Everytime they speak you can hear these assumptions that the ancients were superstitious and incapable and could only have dragged tombs up ramps. We all view reality through our assumptions but Egyptologists have some perverted assumptions about our ancestors. This self imposed blindness has prevented progress in understanding pyramid building for 150 years. It has tainted their understanding of what is most important to them.

> This still does not fit with Hours I see.

You could always pick and choose the horuses as they existed over time and in the words of the various authors and modern Egyptologists. I don't recommend this, of course. The two horuses as I understand them have numerous faces because everything in nature has moree than one face. Even the horus in the book of the dead has multiple faces and these can be chosen quite legitimately so long as they are applied properly.

> What symbolizes stone
> in his image exactly?

Wow!! Here's a question. The answer is everything. This is my source of confidence in my understanding; that everything fits. Much of it is difficult to show because meaning was in context so it can't always be readily extracted. Even where it can be extracted like "horus who was in Tayet" is misunderstood by Egyptologists who never tried to solve the PT through context to find that "Tayet" actually meant "quarry (feminine)" ie- the hole that's left after the stone is removed. They have her ability to "clothe the king" in stone confounded with her later function as "Goddess of Weaving". So I can't prove in simple modern words that "horus who was in tayet" simply means "(building) stones that were in the quarry". Our understanding of the ancients as simpletons and sun addled is comfortable and fits with many centuries of modern understanding. My "interpretation" of the ancient writing isn't comfortable and causes extreme dissonance so they try to ignore it.

Keep in mind that I couldn't readily tell one horus from another until late last year so this concept is probably one of the more difficult to discover suggesting it might be more complicated. To a large extent though it's more a matter of the referents giving up their meaning in a natural order based on usage and several other factors beyong mere complexity. There's no reason to presuppose that I've rediscovered this meaning in some natural order or in order of complexity. There are even vagaries in how the search engines work and have evolved over the last seven years.

There are so many of these I can't attempt to list them all in one post so will just hit some highlights;

614b. Horus has given thee his eye, the hard (one);

This is the stone eye of horus the elder. It is the spource of water.

Horus circulates behind his eye.

1881a. The eye of Horus is offered to thee; it is young with thee; it is large with thee,

This opening for the water is eroded in time.

1965a. "I have given birth to him for thee; I have deposited him for thee; 1 have certainly spit him out for thee."
1965b. He has no feet; he has no arms,

This is in reference to the stone that is horus the younger. Isis (the counterweight) has deposited he has no feet and no arms.

853b. Horus comes, he with the long stride comes;

Horus the elder moves stones 300' at a time.

502b. ... the way goes over the flames under that which the gods create,
503a. which allows each Horus to glide through, in which N. will glide through, in this flame under that which the gods create.

"Each horus" is stone and each horus must glide through to reach the pyramid top.

888c. N. lives on that which Horus, lord of heaven, lives, by the command of Horus, lord of heaven.

Horus the elder is lord of heaven and even anubis must answer to him. Atum, the first god, stands in his eye since zep tepi.

Then there's this final utterance previously cited that contains all the horus';

1085c. The two reed-floats of heaven are placed for Horus Śsm.t,
1085d. that he may ferry over to Rē‘, to the horizon.

1085e. The two reed-floats of heaven are placed for Horus of the East,
1085f. that he may ferry over to Rē‘, to the horizon,
1086a. The two reed-floats of heaven shall be placed for me, I, Horus of the gods,
1086b. that I also may ferry over to Rē‘, to the horizon,
1086c. and that I may take my throne, which is in the Marsh of Reeds.

For a fuller explanation see the Origin of "Horus, (the elder)" here;

[www.grahamhancock.com]

The bottom line here is that there are two horus', one of whom was deposited by isis with no feet and no arms and another born from between the thighs of the ennead at zep tepi who was fathered by atum. People choose not to accept this but this is what the great pyramid builders said. They said it consistently and repeatedly. There is evidence to support their words but there is no evidence to support "they mustta used ramps" or that the Pyramid Texts are the same thing as the book of the dead.

I believe the builders. The more one thinks about it the more one must come to realize that no one ever did or ever could build a great pyramid with magic and superstition. Even if it's not yet time to believe the builders it most assuredly is long past time to study these pyramid using modern science. Ramps are debunked and the paradigm is seriously (probably mortally) wounded.



Post Edited (07-Jul-13 22:32)