_____________________________________________________
Date Line August 26, 2007
NOTATIONAL THOUGHTS:
At this point, as will doubtless be done later in the works, the text diverges, to insert some notional thoughts as to a possible basis for tracing the genetic connections and origins of cultures.
Egyptian Animal Headed deities – animal heads on human bodies – symbolize the absorption of tribes into the overall Egyptian culture.
Each animal head being symbolic the deity of the tribe which became the body of Egyptian Culture and Civilization. Anubis, the jackal headed deity, is actually a dog; or evolved from the dog.
In each instance, the domestication of an animal resulted in its being deified. More properly, the deity of the animal was placated for the service its creature provided through worship ritual.
The Calf, or Cow, were important deities of those pastoral peoples associated with those who gave us farming. In Egypt, the sacred cow (Apis) was associated with the second dynasty, and said to be introduced by Kaiechos.
Egypt may have been a vassal state of Ur (Iran/Iraq). The higher order script of Ur was not transmitted for common usage by its tributaries; instead they used a simpler pictographic script which, in Egypt, these evolved into hieroglyphics. Cuneiform is the abstract writing of the master caste, state, culture, or people.
There is some mention that, in the Second Dynasty, the introduction of both the Cow and Goat was made by the ruler (Manetho, see Chart).
The association of the Golden Calf with the Biblical Aaron is of great interest. The Calf was worshiped in, associated with, Ptah's temple in Memphis, Egypt. In Text context there is the Memphis Theology, lines 56-57 “Lo, every word of the god came into being through the thoughts of the heart & the command by the tongue.”
Recalling the Vedic, the opening of the “Hymn to Ptah” reads: “Hail to You, You who are great and old, ta-Tenen, father of the gods, the great god from the first primordial time who fashioned humanity and made the gods, who began evolution in primordial times, first one after whom everything that appeared developed.” It can be conjectured that Ptah appears to be Brahma.
Ptah is the deity for Creation, Rebirth, Craftsmen; if Ptah is Brahma, there arises a chicken or egg quandary: Which culture developed the theology, or science, which underlies the mythological structures? Or is there yet another cultural common denominator?
Through, or to, Ptah was born Ra. Thus it becomes possible to associate the Vedic Brahma successor deity to the Egyptian; but would any of that yield a timeline for the evolution of the beliefs and philosophical, or scientific, knowledge?
Of interest is that Ptah is depicted as a mummified beared man wearing a skull cap; could it be a bearded man wearing a yarmulka? He is the master architect and framer of everything in the universe. Could he also be the first architect to enter Egypt? This is a pre-dynastic deity.
Today’s religions repeat, modify, and often denigrate, ancient religion, while still mindlessly repeating the same lessons being rediscovered by science.
______________________________________________________
To this point, the focus has been on the Etiological, which is a study of causation. In this instance, causation from cognition to creation to the present. If all is thought, and those thoughts belong to a single entity, why do corporeal beings fear each other?
Xenophobia: the need to keep lines of thought, individuals, separate and as distinct as possible, explains the logic, and common element, of both mythology and day-to-day existance.
Xenophobia defines, controls, or motivates, many, if not all, aspects of human endeavor and culture. Life is very often defined in terms of “them or us,” even though both are one.
If lines of thought, logical and meaningful reasoning constructs, are evident in what we might call genetics, it follows that the repeated assertion of race might be the means to their identification.
Genetic diversity is a reasonable manifestation of the Entity thought pattern. It is both reasonable, and demonstrative, to assert “a line of reasoning” would not wish to consider, or be distracted by, another line of reasoning which is not productive to its advancement.
For reasoning to be productive, it must be kept tight and focused. Yet, there are times when external reasoning, a different viewpoint, proves beneficial. With that in mind, we can draw an analogy to genetics.
Xenophobia, the dislike of people from other places, comes into play with elements of dominant spiritual philosophies. The Vedic, Judaic, Buddhist, Christian, Islamic traditions have, at their root, the Aryan region of Central Asia; specifically the Kashmir region.
There is the question game. Understanding mandates questions which can be answered; questions which cannot be answered; and questions that will be answered if they prove relevant to the answer. Here are some:
Who were the first thoughts of significance?
Who were the first recollected thoughts?
What was the first domesticated crop: Plant or Tree?
What was the first crop of “real” significance?
What thoughts permeate modern thinking?
When and where did agriculture develop?
When and where horses were domesticated?
When and where camel were domesticated?
When and where did lactose tolerance develop?
Where do the mythologies say these things evolved?
Maybe even ask, “Where did life begin?”
Were transitions violent, or peaceful? Do thoughts erase each other, in the process of seeking the conclusion?
The Biblical Creation, The Vedic Creation, the logical beginning of all that is, to this add the later (720 CE) Buddhist influenced Japanese version.
Do this with this thought in mind: The Buddhist comes from the Hindu, which comes from the same Vedic traditions which gave rise to the Hebrew, which gave rise to the Christian.
The first book of the Nihongi states variations from many source document, possibly you recognize this:
“In one writing it is said: ‘Before Heaven and Earth were produced, there was something which might be compared to a cloud floating over the sea. It had no place of attachment for its root. In the midst of this a thing was generated which resembled a reed-shoot when it is first produced in the mud. This became straightway transformed into human shape and was called Kuni no toko-tachi no Mikoto.’"
Allow this to be shortened; and it yield this: "Before Heaven and Earth were produced, there was something which might be compared to a cloud floating. It had no place of attachment for its root. In the midst of this a thing was generated [something which] became straightway transformed into human shape" Our Entity is born, as in the Vedic.
______________________________________________________
Most of our myths tell of, or involve, the “sons of god.” Brahmins of Vedic tradition did not enter new territories as violent invaders; rather they came as representatives of a prevailing deity. The Brahmin, Aryan “invaders”, presented themselves human deities.
The Chenchu of India relate how their deity, Shiva, was hunting in an assumed form; he saw a woman of the village and from the Chenchu were born.
DNA testing makes it clear that male Chenchu are clearly not related to surrounding tribes. More important, their Haplogroup is the same as that of the Brahmin; showing a strong presence of haplotype R1a.
The Vedic, Judaic, Buddhist, Christian, Islamic traditions have, at their root, the Aryan region of Central Asia; specifically the Kashmir region of Northern India, and the region in which agriculture first appears, around the Black Sea.
Ancient Remains appear in the Georgian State, the land of Colchis as mentioned by Herodotus; who also assigns the domestication of horses and development of iron to Anatolia, the southern shore region of the Black Sea.
History may never reveal why Herodotus focused on the Black Sea region; but he has been proved correct on many levels. Herodotus tells of the Amazons, and archaeologists have uncovered graves of women warriors, arrows in their bodies, and their legs bowed in the manner of horsemen.
Curiously, these remains, those associated with Amazons, are toward the region of the Indus Valley and the origin region of the Aryan. It is in the Indus, the seven rivers, Sapta Sindhu. The Rig-Veda speaks of cattle (kine) in this region.
The problem of ancient literature is the symbolism lost in linguistic references born of ages long gone. Professor Richard Villems of the Estonian Biocentre in Estonia has stated, "The problem, with historic linguistics is that their time horizon is at best 8,000 years maximum, because their methods don't yield positive information below this time depth.”
Analysis of language does not allow determination of origins beyond 8,000 years; but origins are not meanings. Meanings of words, an idea which linguistically asserts something “bad” is “good”, does not easily translate. In religions, the deities of a time are demonized upon defeat by a new faith. Original symbolic values vanish under the weight of their demon coatings.
Still, the existence of cultural references, can allow extrapolation to a period back twice that period back, twice 8,000 years; to the dawn of the agricultural age which presented time and subsistence to those who would think.
The Rig-Veda also speaks of Soma, as a deity, a plant, and a drink. Is it possible that the sacred Soma was a wine? It is posited that soma might have been a hallucinogenic agent; yet it is wine which became the reference of ritual, the nectar of the gods; thus, pending conclusive evidence to the contrary, we shall assume soma is wine.
When and where did agriculture develop?
When and where cattle were domesticated?
When and where horses were domesticated?
When and where was wine first made?
The images of discoveries form around the Black sea, they form in association with Anatolia, the Ararat volcanic region and rivers in Iran and the Indus Valley.
If this is where the thinking emerged, it follows that civilization is discovered here too. Civilization is discovered, discoveries spread to change the world. Learning, thought and logic, yield discoveries and explanations. Those with learning spread their craft and change the lives of those they meet. Was the change over violent, or peaceful?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
As interesting as the transition from primitive hunter, seeker, to that of thoughtful seeker of truth might prove to be, the matter of linguistics, semantic expression, is not to be over looked. Consider an underlying semantic: “What is life?”
Douglas Adams, author of “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe”, had his trilogy become a quest for the answer to “Life, the Universe, and Everything.” The answer to which, apparently, is forty-two.
Adams devoted his craft, his humor, to the philosophical. Consider this postulate:
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable.
“There is another theory which states that this has already happened.“
Is there a reason for existence? Does “the Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” have an answer? Is there a purpose? Does the postulated Entity exist?
Considering that we began with its existence as a given; and proposed the matter to be one of it asking itself that very same question – after it had already deduced an answer which made it God.
Philosophically, theologically, any discussion of an initial Entity has no real meaning to humanity. We are here, and how we arrived, the initial creator or origin, is a logical trap. The creation begins with what we define as life; and not some sentient energy which preceded, originated, or which we need to invoke as explanation, to our being.
In short, the thoughts of the entity upon becoming consciously sentient are our thought. The Vedic idea that man is god, creating god as an explanation of his existence, and creating life as we know it – for whatever reason; or simply to deduce, or extrapolate, a reason for its own existence.
It does not matter. Entity! Deity! Higher sentient power! Or just the universe and nature; we interact with what is. There is evidence of any interaction with an all powerful, arbitrary or capricious, entity.
The being of Western Religious hypocritical action and thought can not be said to exist in our reality; though it is as much reality as any of the mythologies and superstitions humans of insignificant sentient ability invoke in response to unknown scientific principles.
When confronted by creation, there exist just three levels of human consciousness:
1. Atheist: one who denies a creation point beyond which no evidence, or theory can extend;
2. Agnostic: one who accepts a creation point, but rejects an organized human structure of authority representing, or interpreting, it.
3. Religious: a mandated belief system held together by humans who have absolute authority over humanity. Within this construct there are kings, popes, and formalized leaders who dictate belief; and there are teachers who guide people toward self-perfection. When compared, it is the difference between the profiteering exemption from laws and authority of the first, and the beggar cup of the second.
Clearly, we have begun with the concept of a sentient entity. That is our premise and, as such, it excludes Atheistic illogic, or some circular Atheistic logic. The circular being any statement which says that there is no eternal entity as creator, but there is an eternal universe from which all is created. Atheism rests on contradictory semantics.
Which of the other two positions this work follows is a matter of interpretation of ones personal comfort zone. Certainly we must, and are, eliminating any organized church hierarchies. The beggar cup, or the simple acceptance of a beginning entity – sentient or not, but of necessity we fall toward sentient – from which everything evolved.
_____________________________________________________
Imagine, if you can, a supreme being moving through existence as a beggar, cup in hand, living a Blanche DuBois existence, relying on the kindness of strangers.
That is precisely the Vedic Brahmin teaching, and, though denied in practice, the directions as to how those who preach the teachings of Jesus should live. It is precisely the Institutional Christian denial of their own teachings which argues western Agnosticism.
Denial of the existing reality is a hallmark of most western religions, the religion which evolved from Roman and European Pagan tradition. It is, in our study, obviously an alternative thought pattern of the Entity – but only as a diversionary alternative to be dispensed with as both illogical and internally inconsistent with the underlying premise of a creator who is all.
All religious logic, regardless of the layers of mythology, returns to a single entity in search of meaning to its own existence. As the product of that entity, all sentient life must also be asking that question. In the realm of Douglas Adams, the computer tasked with finding the answer was the Earth, and the process was evolution.
In the theological realm, evolution, the process by which something is constructed, yields to creation without construction, product without manufacture. The end product appears in the store; and, we accept it, never wondering, or considering, the engineering which brought it.
Theology is going to a supermarket with the faith that what you require will be there; or, at least, not be out-of-stock for too long. We live on that faith, live in faith that what we need will be there. We seldom, usually, for most, never give a thought to the process of bringing it.
It is amazing that there are those who would insist that automobiles just appear in the showroom; that products just appear in warehouses to be shipped to stores; that raw materials appeared in their finished and usable forms without any precursor process.
The theological logic of those, now called Creationists, who function in denial of each and every precursor to each and every element of the physical universe is the theology of intellectual denial.
If we assume an intelligent sentient entity as the start, we must also assume a process of knowledge development beginning with cognition.
If we assume a timeless entity, an entity outside of our concept of time, we cannot ascribe our time limitations to the evolutionary elements of its thought process. We need to introduce perspective.
For humanity, a day is one revolution of the Earth on its axis; a year is one cycle of the earth’s elliptical journey around the sun. But what is a day, or year, when you are on Mars? And what would a day be from the perspective of the Sun in its rotation on its axis as it journeys around the center of the Universe? How egotistical to assume that any one part of a body is the defining point for the body as a whole!
In Vedic, and New Testament, tradition, a day to a deity is a thousand years on earth. Those who claim to believe in the literal nature of New Testament scripture are very quick to deny its criteria. They also reject that which they know came before, or concurrent with, what they recognize as Old Testament origins.
We know the logic of first awakening, of initial cognition, of an entity without reference via sensory sensation, of an entity who can only be seen as pure sentient cognition denied of senses. The entity lives a life of total, and complete, sensory depravation in which it defines time by its own internal mental clock.
For the purpose of our journey, and exploration, all matter is within the entity. One might argue that Dark matter, which, in terms of energy matter relationships defined by Einstein, is the missing bulk matter, is the entity thinking in other dimensions.
Time is a construct within thought. It has no real relevance when the idea is to define the time utilized by an entity which is outside our own reference realm for time. Hence, the evolutionary process, which we see as billions of years, could be defined as an instant of entity time.
We can then view every unit of time which is closer to us as being a time defined by focus and concentration.
The natural problem is, like the Vedic Brahma who creates deities and men, effectively moving backward and forward in the evolutionary process of Brahma’s own thinking, we can never be sure if the universe came into existence with our individual awakening from our most recent sleep cycle.
With that curious thought, that you came into existence when you woke, will cease to exist when you again go to sleep; that you are only a transient thought among billions of such thoughts; with that possibility we enter the physical realm of Shreknangst
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
