QUOTE(caritas @ Sep 10 2007, 09:31 PM)
Ptah is a creator deity.
Ra is the solar cyclic who needs defense at night in his barque against Apep.
Amun is better because of origin and role, but has no enlightened doctrine, and is more of a king of the gods than conqueror and liberator.
There are appropriate manifestations of the kayas, and perhaps a deeper investigation of them, and their attributes, and portrayals, according to a legitimate course of study, would serve you well.
Ra is the solar cyclic who needs defense at night in his barque against Apep.
Amun is better because of origin and role, but has no enlightened doctrine, and is more of a king of the gods than conqueror and liberator.
There are appropriate manifestations of the kayas, and perhaps a deeper investigation of them, and their attributes, and portrayals, according to a legitimate course of study, would serve you well.
First of all, you have just insulted the Khemetian Religion, by accusing the Khemetians of being idolaters.
You've also assumed that I have not studied the attributes of the Kayas at all.
The Khemetians understood the various deities to be impermanent, interdependent parts of a whole.
Although, even this is a simplified explanation, as their Philosophies are comparable to that of the Tantras.
The Kemetians did not see the Neteru as independent "Creator Gods" as in the exoteric Judeo-Christian view of deities, as you have just implied that they did.
QUOTE
The "without limit" may be a conceptual corruption of dharma, but since it is couched within an explicitly eternalist, dualist, conceptual framework, there is no meaningful connection to be drawn with the extent and precision of the buddhadharma - one may trace it back directly to the hindu teachings, or consider it a resumption of them through ignorance from the buddhadharma - but there is no parity. Most of what you are calling esoteric interpretations are based upon 19th century French characters, some a little younger, some a little bit less French, but all of whom had the potential exposure to at least the common misconceptions of dharma at the time. So there is no doubt that there is "influence" or that there is "similarity" - but clarity there is not.
More ASSUMPTIONS.
QUOTE
Certainly - although at the end of the day, if one is honest and approaches the reflection with critical requirements of consistency, validity, and so on, there will be distinctions that render the buddhadharma unique.
Every Religion is unique, exoterically.
Esoterically, there is only ONE Wisdom Religion, which manifests through many exoteric forms.
But I digress for now.
If you want a good glimpse at the Esoteric interpretations of Metu Neter and Shetaut Neter, which is totally lost on Western "scholars" and "Egyptologists"; then you might try:
Ra Un Nefer Amen
Gerald Massey
Sebai Muata Ashby
Schwaller de Lubicz
Regards
An idol is just a spot of sacred space for the divine enrgy to rest. Like cleaning your body, room before ritual or meditation. I actually collect idols, I love having them around, very pretty..... I have pics of them up in the gallery.
Lets take a look at "mystery schools"
and the importence of understanding it.
On one level we have the neyophite and the then 'beginner' levels
On face value, there are some who actually believe in the Ntr as "gods" : actual devine beings that pay attention, listen to prayers, govorn certain things in nature and creation and all that. I think Kemetic Orthadoxi is like that as is Nahati Am Nutjeru (Im not 100% on that... but they do smooosh budhist teachings in their doctorine as well)
There is a group in cali that is all about the 'worship' of Bast .... so those would be the first two levels... neyophites. They learn the 'basic' teachings (one would hope,,, but I have noticed some sects just kinda ingnore it) the basic teaching of 'correct' behavior.
Next two levels
Aprentice and Initiate
Oh wait,,, you mean there's more?????
yeah
Like my Temple ... we are not 'idolitors' we are all into that sacred science and alchemy.... alchemy you say???
lol
oh yeah
The transforming of the spirit from yuckienes to divine ! (this should sound like a familiar thing to any buddhst) again the Ntr are symbolic teachings of blah blah see other post....
Ra Um Nefrer coppies from Schwaller de Lubicz, so be careful w/that.... he doesnt even site Schwaller de Lubicz's books. And I will also warn you that he has lots of recial bias hanging out in that book. As for his tendancy to copy Schwaller de Lubicz.... sometimes its word for word out of Esoterism and Symbol and then Alternate w/Symbol and the Symbolic.
needless to say I dont sudgest his obviously plageristic works anymore. Not because after sifting through the racial bias he doesnt have anything worthwhile to say but the mear act of doing that, esp for the kind of book its supposed to be is a gross violoation of the ethics he claims to have... that kind of thing doesnt sit well with me. But then again, neither does racial bias no matter how much he attempts to rationalise its validiaty. Both Schwaller de Lubicz and Muata Ashy present much the same concepts with out resourting to such a thing.
also you can try reading Rosemary Clark and Chritian Jacq
My first teacher started off with the works of Muata Ashby. he used to come and lecture here !!!!!
kmt view of ntr is all encompassing
there is God/ esistance/the universe (they are not seperate)
Ntr are the teachings that lead us to enlightenment of the nautre of our/god's/universe's exsistance
No comments:
Post a Comment