Apech

I agree with this part more or less. Unas is one of the texts I studied for years The h in ht is a hard h - maybe like the ch in German as in 'nicht' - and hence it is often transliterated as 'khat' - so that's the same word. In fact it is sometimes rendered khatu - i.e. plural as in 'body parts'. So the physical body which the Egyptians understood anatomically quite well was seen sometimes as a collection of organs. The ka is something like the etheric or bio-magnetic body (qi body ?) which cocoons the physical body in life - at death it separates as you say as the first stage in death. It is fed (in life) by food, sex and attention - and could be compared with the Greek charisma - there was such a thing as a royal ka which kings acquired at coronation - so status is a factor here - hence why powerful men are sexy (to some). The ba is a word which is interchangeable with neter or god - so its you divine nature - it is seen as luminous and creative in that it can project images of itself - a bit like William Blake's use of the word imagination - literally image making. The ba unlike the ka does not accompany the body but is free to fly where it pleases. If things go well it will fly to the East at dawn to witness the sunrise = creation. There is another important aspect to the self which is the 'swt' or shadow - which is a conceptual mental body - it also is free to move about. The physical body protected by mummification becomes magically reconstructed and is a kind of energetic facsimile of the living body - this is the sah. When the elements or different bodies which separate at death are magically reassembled through the processes described in the various texts they form a being called the 'akh' which means 'effective spirit' - or 'horizon dweller' - this is a spiritual entity - your true self if you like which is immortal and survives both death and the second death. Becoming akh is the purpose of Egyptian practice and the texts are sometimes called 'akhifiers'.

sexcapades 2.0

I think its worth asking what we mean by 'easy'. Heaven is known by its easeful-ness to paraphrase the Yijing (I think ) ... but I am not a Daoist so I'll leave that there. As far as Pure Land Buddhism goes that's quite interesting. It arose in the first centuries AD in Gandhara/Kashmir - and was preceded by the way by a similar doctrine to Akshobhya (Eastern Buddha) but it was Amitabha (Western Buddha) which gained in popularity especially in East Asia. But to some Buddhists the whole idea of it is strictly 'heretical' - because relying on an external 'deity' is a no no. But what was being said at the time it did develop, was that such was the state of ignorance and so on, in the world that it was becoming impossible to gain enlightenment by the original direct methods of meditation and analysis (of reality e.g. abhidharma). So the only way was to rely on the pre-existence of the perfect realm and a perfect being that lived therein. So in a sense you were substituting your own enquiry into the nature of things by appealing to another to release you from ignorance. It is close to the Dzogchan thing of you already being enlightened and what you need to do is appeal to this. There's a certain sweetness to the Tibetan Dewachen prayers which is appealing - but generally speaking I find Pure Landism very unappealing ... and i find it hard to get my head around the idea of doing nothing but chanting the buddhas name. But this is probably my own shortcomings. Is Amitabha solar in some sense. Well, maybe. But unlike TM I don't see this as a bad thing and not particularly patriarchal (especially as these days the word patriarchal is equated to bad :) ). In ancient India when Buddha lived there were two distinct cultural areas - in one which followed the chandra (moon) path the Vedic practices dominated - in the other where the ideal was the wandering sage it was the surya (sun path) and from this came Jainism, Buddhism, Ajivekism etc. - so if Amitabha is an extension of this then yes it might be considered at least in association somewhat solar.

Nice video - thanks.

Hmmm. This is Thelemic rather than trad Egyptian. The ht is the physical body and the sah is the magically reconstituted body in the form of the mummy. Here it is presented as the union of the ka and the ba, which is also 'correct' - but the ba is male and sometimes drawn in glyphs as a penis which doesn't quite sit right with identifying it with Isis (Auset). In fact I would be tempted to reverse the correspondences of ka and ba - but hey. I think the triad of father, mother and child in relation to the right angled 3/4/5 triangle is fine - but I can't recall ever seeing an ancient Egyptian version of this - which is why I say its Thelemic.

That magick is Fooling no-one, Nungas.

An interesting video about the transition from hunter gatherer to 'Anatolian' farmers:

Sure. Will derives from or is synonymous with consciousness - or you could say its the activity of the buddha-nature or mind if you like. In other words it is completely free and unbound by like/dislike and other evaluations based on need and greed etc. It freely chooses what to place value in - what state of being to identify with or not. As such its only 'law' in the sense of necessary consequence of its own nature is to do what is willed ('do what thou wilt'). But in 'doing', acting, it (or you) make a commitment to one action or set of actions over others. In other words you freely respond to each situation without pre-determined limits but your responses are embodied in specific acts. But in doing so, in acting from free consciousness or the natural state completely free of any self determined appetite, it (or you) act(s) spontaneously for what ever benefits self and others - or to put it the other way round your actions automatically are of benefit - to act for the benefit (which means the development of higher awareness and more whole being) is love. Not romantic love but spiritual love. So doing what thou wilt in a true sense is to manifest love. So the law of will is to love. Or that's how I understand it anyway.

Love is the law, love under will.

I meant gendao not Sitchin (although I haven't read him) and I wasn't sneering.

#Me too. (I was hoping this thread would be free from weird racist racial theories).

If there were reason for these miseries, then into limits could I bind my woes. If the winds rages, doth not the sea wax mad, threat'ning the welkin with its big-swoll'n face? And wilt though have a reason for this coil? I am the sea. Hark how her sighs doth blow. She is the weeping welkin, I the earth.

I don't think anyone cares how you sit.

Really? This woman is making it up?

sin boots

What am I?

Just a couple of takeaways from the Sweatman thing and so on. 1. If it is right that cave art is zodiacal - then of course this means the Babylonians were just codifying something very, very ancient - which is interesting in terms of how people have always understood the relation between 'as above so below' etc. 2. If we are talking about civilisation and its effects - then Gobekli Tepe means we have to review entirely what we mean by that term - as clearly social organisation, engineering, architecture, symbolic thought existed pre settled agriculture and city dwelling. So I guess we need to separate culture and civilisation - which tend to be conflated. By the way in his book Sweatman compares the 'handbags' to the Egyptian horizon (akhet) symbol:

I'm glad you are at peace - but otherwise I have no idea what you are going on about.

Try this one Sorry TM not trying to hijack your thread

I don't know, I guess so. He goes through the evidence quite thoroughly in 1 and 2 - he's fair but clearly favours the impact theory. The book is quite interesting but a few points I don't quite agree with - but hey some good ideas.

Sure. I'm not convinced by all his findings - but he has an interesting approach which is unlike other researchers.

Martin Sweatman : https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prehistory-Decoded-Martin-Sweatman/dp/178901638X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=martin+sweatman&qid=1573638068&sr=8-1 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx11KXwumf5w8J-GdBGKNVA

Maybe steady states don't exist (?) - I think there is a very complex relationship between the ruler and ruled which can sometimes be tyranny but other times is just the best (or easiest) way to survive. We forget how hard life was for most of human history. Grouping together under single rulership and mutual defence is a survival mechanism but involves giving up individual freedom, mobility and independence. Its hard to live free - so maybe the best option is the edge - in society but not of it (???). I don't think its a coincidence that moral and mural (wall) are so phonetically similar. Which is why I choose to live on the edge of town