Thursday, January 20, 2022
6:30 a.m. Setting switches for maximum focus, receptivity, clarity, presence. Let’s continue pursuing the Egyptian idea of how the world is. I’ll add Ruth Shilling’s email on the subject. [Ruth, whom I met at TMI when I was guest speaker at her Guidelines program, hosted the tour of Egypt that I enjoyed so much, three years ago. She has been studying these things for decades.]
Hi Frank,
This is how I view it.
BA: Human head and body of a bird.
This is the aspect of us that can travel out-of-body. When we do, we have vision, we can think, hear… so whatever goes along with the out-of-body state fits with this. This aspect of ourselves continues when the physical body is no longer operating (after death) and during our lives when we have experiences that are not in our physical bodies.
KA: Upraised arms in the “to worship” gesture.
Are you familiar with the Daskalos books (Kyriacos Markidas)? Daskalos would call this the Holy Spiritual aspect of ourselves. This is related to the body as the etheric template. People with psychic vision see this as a blue layer around the physical body. It actually permeates the entire physical apparatus as an etheric template that shapes the physical body structure.
At Abydos, there is a wall relief of a person with his Ka. The person has a reddish-brown skin color and the Ka’s skin is a light blue color. At Luxor temple, in the Divine Birth room, we see Khnum (the potter god from Aswan) fashioning two bodies on his potter’s wheel. One is the person’s physical body and the other is the person’s Ka. Hathor holds the ankh up to his nose, thus giving the clay body the life-force energy (ankh) to give him life.
The upraised arms in the “to worship” gesture also includes the shoulders, but… no head. So whereas the Ba has a human head (individual thought, free will…) the Ka is instead in perpetual communion with the Divine. Like a tree or flower or bird or animal that is simply a living expression of God and does not have the ability to think of itself as an independent consciousness. So in a sense, one could say this aspect of self never ate of the Tree or left the garden.
AKH: Our shining light body, the symbol is a large, slim white bird with a straight beak (not curved like Thoth)
The direct translation is the “shining light body.” This is symbolized by the color gold (the sun is also gold-yellow) in the Egyptian symbology. You may remember I mentioned in the Nefertari book that the goddesses have yellow skin to symbolize them being golden. The mask of King Tut is gold because the idea is that he has “become golden,” meaning that he is now his Akh.
Of course to the OBE group, this makes a lot of sense. Advanced ones appear to us as beings of light. That would be those who have become their Akh, or their identity is more weighted in that direction.
In the Egyptian view, those beings of light are the stars. I always thought that was a nice way to think of it. Looking up at a starry sky and seeing lots and lots of light-beings shining their light to us.
From the viewpoint of Daskalos, he would probably have described the Ba as the potential Christ-person, the Ka as the Holy Spiritual aspect, and the Akh as the full Divine. That may jive for you or not.
Regarding the Ka as the etheric template, it is, of course, not gone when the physical body dies, but if the person is to “live again” as themselves here in 3D, they would need the Ka in order to have a physical body. The physical body needs a Ka to manifest. There are representations of the Ka (statues) in the Old Kingdom tombs with an offering table in front of them. The idea was to keep the Ka’s energy going so that the physical body could at some point come back to life, or it could have been that they thought keeping the Ka going somehow kept the person alive in that form. This part I am not clear on.
So in short, the way I see it is:
The Ba part of us thinks, has perceptions, individuality, ego, is on an adventure, exploring, learning…
The Ka is the aspect of ourselves that is in constant communion with the Divine – that never left the garden.
The Akh is our true divine Self (while we here masquerade in the great sea of potentiality and illusion).
Love to you,
Ruth
—————————————–
Ruth Shilling, All One World Egypt Tours
Webs: timespace-egypttour.com, ruthshilling.com
Email: all1worldtours@gmail.com
NEW BOOKS:
The Tomb of Queen Nefertari
Egyptian Gods & Goddess Notebooks – 18 Volumes
—————————————–
And yesterday, I returned to Peter Novak’s book that I published in 2003, The Lost Secret of Death, which I need to re-read. Peter compared the Ba to the conscious, and the Ka to the unconscious, mind.
Very different takes on it. Do you remember why we are having you look at it?
It has to do with our place in the world, that’s all I could say.
Immediately, it addresses the question of how this life can be your only life as you, and yet you continue to exist. Or so it seems.
Yes, “or so it seems.” I got that!
Bear in mind how many complexities we have to address at the same time. So many puzzles. You are, in a way, in the position the Wright Brothers were in, when they were reasoning out the principles of flight, wanting to reduce them to something practical.
Yes, one of them wrote to the other, later, something to the effect of “Think how many secrets had been kept, for so long, from everybody., only to finally be discovered by us.” There was a sense of awe about it. He wasn’t bragging; he was almost incredulous. Even when they had been thinking about it and working on it for so many, many years, it must have seemed too good to be true that they might actually succeed when everyone had failed.
There is a first time for everything, and sometimes it is a matter of waiting for the times to roll around to make possible what had not been possible before.
Richard Bach wrote an essay called “Egyptians are one day going to fly” (in A Gift of Wings), pointing out that the ancient Egyptians had everything that would have been needed to discover unpowered flight; not just balloons a la the Montgolfier brothers in France in the 1700s, but gliders. What they didn’t have was the animating idea, turned into practicality. Bach’s immediate application was telepathy, if I remember right. He said one day we will use abilities we always had, but didn’t know how to employ.
It is not much different when you come to figuring out how reality really is. You are likely to have to overcome persistent common-sense doubt that says, “If it can’t be figured out, I can’t do it. If it can be figured out, someone will have done it, and long ago. Neither way can I make a meaningful contribution.” Yet, the principles of flight could be deduced; the practical application of them could be worked out. Something that had not existed could come into being. It was true of flight, and it is true of a way of seeing life that will fit your new circumstances.
Nor did the Wrights work alone.
Exactly. If they had quit, there is no telling how long it might have been before the right combination of mental and physical and societal traits had produced success, but one thing is sure: one person’s failure never means never. There is always some other way for life to get what it wants. But it is also true that life is replete with wasted opportunities.
Over the years, I have certainly felt the drag of that doubt: What can I add that hasn’t been known long ago? Maybe everybody has to fight that.
You might look at it differently. In considering flight, drag is not an obstacle to flight, so much as one factor among many to be balanced so as to allow movement in a desired direction. No airplane could be all lift and no drag.
So just take it as a given to be dealt with, eh? In practice, that is what I did.
It is what you or anyone would have to do, to proceed with anything. As we pointed out long ago, faith and doubt are the same thing, viewed from opposite directions. They are not opposites, but a midpoint between knowledge and ignorance.
I’m going to need to do some synthesizing here, aren’t I?
It would be helpful, as it would clarify concepts for you. That is, it would clarify the relationship of one set of things to another set of things.
I’ve bene resisting this for years, always feeling inadequate to the task and always feeling like maybe tomorrow you will set out entirely new fields of inquiry, as you have done many times, which would have the potential to reshape everything I thought I understood up till then.
Yes. So?
Oh, I know where you’re going. We said it in Muddy Tracks (though in those days I thought it was me writing, rather than us): Anything we can ever write is only an interim report.
Such interim reports can be very useful in solidifying the understanding of the one writing them, if not also the ones reading.
If only I had a starting place! For Muddy Tracks, I hung it on my personal journey. That worked, but it would be tedious, here, because the focus ought to be the view of the world (of reality), not the various incomplete sketches that were repeatedly amended.
It may not have occurred to you, that record has been written as we went along. Not only your books of these conversations, but the conversations themselves, for those who have followed them or may follow them in the future. We have reminded you many times, our method has been to blend how-to with theory, continually. But writing a precis of how it seems to you is not – need not be, anyway – an impossible chore requiring skills you don’t have. Merely do for this what you have done already, more than once: The Cosmic Internet. Imagine Yourself Well. Abandon the dialog format; make no attempt to allocate credit for the ideas, nor to trace their genealogy. Merely set it out. People will get what they can get.
I’m still looking for an organizing principle., though.
Try this. You’re looking at the central problem from several directions. Truth always converges, so follow each spoke inward toward the hub of the wheel.
Even defining the spokes seems more than I can do. For instance, I have lost the thread we were following just last week.
You will need to do a little plodding, but it can be reduced to a system. Your list of daily headers at one extreme, the dialogues at the other extreme. Now you need a list of topics that can clarify for you the progression of investigations. That is, we have attacked the subject from various angles. List them, explore them, summarize them, and you will see relationships among them that were never made explicit but could be made explicit in an analytical rather than stenographic record.
All right, I see that.
You could do morning sessions concerned with your novel, then work a little bit on outlining the major aspects of our investigations with you over time. Only, don’t be so ambitious that you burn out. Do a little at a time and settle for that, and you’ll go longer.
All right. Theme?
You might title this one “How to learn the laws of flight,” or perhaps just “Learning to fly.”
How much interest will anybody else have in my own perplexities on how to proceed?
You think you have a monopoly on perplexity? Sometimes it helps to see that others have similar problems. Sometimes it helps intuit solutions.
Okay, thanks.