The Incredible Blindness of Seeing

The question came over the transom, curt and direct, like an urging: What do you mean when Neruamun “sees” with his Eye of Râ (Heart Eye, or Eye of the Sun)? The proper urging behind an excellent question...

Then it hit me! I know what I mean by it, but obviously not everyone does. Not everyone “sees” even when they have their eyes open. Naturally, this use of the verb “to see” leads to confusion and I apologize beforehand. The kind of “seeing” Neruamun is doing is not going on through the organ of his eyes. In other words, it’s not light that’s passing through the lens and hitting the retina, etc., and from there an “image” of what’s being observed emerges. (If one believes in these kinds of things. Personally, I don’t think sight actually works that way. The eyes were formed from light itself, the light of the Sun, but it’s in the “mechanics” we have it wrong).

Doctors, scientists, and the vast majority of people attribute to themselves the Five Senses (sight, hearing, smell, feeling/touch, and taste -- I usually put this last one first!). This works out, somehow, because we only have five visible organs on our face. Touch arguably we do through the skin, with our limbs, but we can also touch with our faces. Not to get too far off the beaten path, the “scientific” idea relates senses only to some physical organ, which is capable of “sensing.” This gets us into the “chicken and egg” conundrum, but let us put that aside for the time being. Whether we have a “sixth sense” is something science can’t say much about one way or another because they can’t identify an organ which does the “sensing” for this sixth sense.

In other words, where’s the organ to sense ESP experiences? Where are the “eyes” of “clairvoyance”? In more mundane realms, what’s the organ that “senses” magnetic fields, as birds and other animals seem to respond to (again the problem is not a question of what animal species has the capacity, but rather what physical organ does the “work”). Without a physiological explanation there is no explanation. That’s how far our science can go and no further.

Some ancient traditions tell us that there are 12 senses; some claim 14, others 21 (there are some neurologists who believe in as many as 21 senses at our disposal). If you ask me, that’s a bundle of unused senses! What and where are these senses? I don’t know! Yet, it doesn’t seem to be as far-fetched as it sounds.

For example... what if “balance” were a sense? How is it possible that we maintain a “sense of balance” (we even say it in words!). What keeps us upright? Unfortunately, while our science chases after chromosome “immortality,” life-extending drugs, and genetic engineering, these more important questions are left behind and ignored. One area being disregarded altogether is where is “common” sense amongst our organs and sinew?

In “The Horizon Keeper,” I portray this special “sight” in the realms beyond the five senses. I relied on the idea of “organs,” which make it possible to have “perception” in the Dwat, as if they were physical, when they’re most likely supra-physical (or beyond the physical plane).

When Neruamun “sees,” either in union with Set, his Crow Aide, or on his own, he’s taking advantage of one of his “extra” senses -- the ones beyond the general range of “sensory” perception. In Ancient Egypt the Eye of Râ was considered such an “organ.” Clearly, they did not intend to imply that it was a physical organ made of flesh, blood, sinew, etc. The idea, not unlike the Hindu idea (and Buddhist) was that these “organs” were like flowers growing along the Djet Pillar (the traditional Hindu Chakras along the spine). These “Lotus Flowers,” as I call them, were developed by the adept or initiate through initiation, meditation, and esoteric exercises. 

In order to awaken these dormant “organs” so they could “see” the Hekai magician (the Pure One) also had to act in a special way. Thus, the idea that the Hekai follows the “Way of Ma’at,” which is not unlike the Eastern ideal of the Tao -- and, in fact, may well be the very same thing! This path, this way of acting, is what gives the Hekai “magical powers.” Having to follow this path (also known as the “Path of Beauty”) leads us to the moral imperative that creates conflict in many of the scenes. In other words to “do the Good” one must also “act in Truth,” which is an antithesis to “the end justifies the means.” Something to ponder in our own daily lives, wouldn’t you say?

Why did the Black People have such a high regard for the Eye of Râ? Who can say? This symbol appeared everywhere in the Black Land, in the North and in the South, and in all epochs of their civilization. We can speculate about why this was the case. But it seems to me that it’s not far-fetched to understand the importance of the Eye of Râ in light of the Black People’s Sacred Science (i.e., the compendium of knowledge they possessed and which spoke to their Sun Heart -- instead of their abstract intellect -- illuminating every facet of their Cosmology or “worldview.”). Needless to say, their Sacred Science was a super-set of what has come down to us as Hermetic Wisdom, Astrology, Alchemy, etc., and was the “mother” of all these “sciences.”

The Eye of Râ was an important piece of the puzzle, since it commanded an important place not only in the Heka tradition (magical tradition of the Temple) but also in the Black People’s Sacred Science. Therefore there is likely more to it, especially when it comes to Ancient Egyptian Mythology and Legend.

To begin with the Eye of Râ was a “composite” as many things were in the eyes of the Black People (nothing was entirely what it appeared to be on the surface). The Eye of Râ contained “within it” the Eye of Heru and the Eye of Djehuti (as I explain in the book), the Sun Eye and the Moon Eye respectively. As a result, one story which fascinated me was, of course, one that explained that one Came Forth By Day, the Westerner “n-Wasir” did so through the Eye of the Eye of Râ -- through the Earth, Sun, and Moon.

Well, I’ll get back to the Eye of Râ real soon, so stay tuned. Because we can spend all day musing on what all this actually means... and, I don’t have all day. So be my guest and wax upon that thought for a while... and please don’t forget to comment on your own thoughts and ideas right here.

History as “Fable Convenue”

Let’s not kid ourselves. Folks who read “historical fiction” are darn smart. Everyone who reads Fiction is darn smart, but if anything, those who read “historical novels” are more so. One of the reasons is their intense interest in the subject matter (be it a historical personality, a historical period in particular, or in general). They also read copious amounts of History (i.e., “non-fiction” books) to supplement their knowledge base. I’m not ashamed to admit I do the same.

I often get asked by these very smart folks how “accurate” the history in “The Horizon Keeper” series really is. It seems a sincere if not innocuous question. Sometimes it’s asked through innocent, sparkling eyes. But that’s what throws me. I wonder if that’s a trick question or not. So I have to ask: But “accurate” in comparison to what? To Herodotus? Manetho (Egyptian historian of the 3^rd Century B.C.)? Thucydides? Cato? Sima Qian? To what Urwah ibn Zubayr knew of History in 700 A.D.? Isn’t what passed for “history” a thousand years ago, not legend today? Isn’t “accuracy” a function of interpretation?

It’s clear we fail on the “interpretation” side more than we should, especially when it comes to “As Above, so Below.” History to the ancients was “written in the stars” and as a result, most reputable Historians were really Astrologers (as was Sima Qian of the Han Dynasty in China). The very best were most likely also Alchemists, as the famous case of Ptolemy bears noting. Ptolemy essentially did the work of what we today would call a Historian...

This leads me to the fabulous nature of historical accounts which are accepted as “objective” or “accurate” by very intelligent people nowadays. These very same folks harp on the fact that the books they read are found in the “non-fiction” section of their local bookstores (or eBook retailers). But I have to ask myself: Who writes the non-fiction History they read? Don’t people know WHO writes History? Yeah, it’s written by the murderers (a.k.a. as the “victors” or “winners”), or by frustrated novelists -- I forget which. Accuracy doesn’t enter into it! If it’s a good yarn and some of the obvious “holes” are covered it can easily pass as “rigorous” historical facts.

Not to demean the profession of the Historian. I admire them a great deal, especially Herodotus. I also admire Manetho, the Temple Pure One (priest) who decided to compile the King List for a dying civilization. Ah... the tomb-like smell of musty air. What can be more fun than pulling back the cobwebs of time to reveal the ancient past? (O.K., how about a good Mai-Tai on a white sand beach lined with swaying hula dancers and palm trees?) Ehem!

Before “The Horizon Keeper” gets started, as a cautionary missive, I present my readers with a little known quote from Voltaire, circa 1764. It’s from the Encyclopédie des Citations (1959), by P. Dupré (a French “Encyclopaedia of Quotations”).

“Toutes les histoires anciennes, comme le disait un de nos beaux esprits, ne sont que des fables convenues...” -François-Marie Arouet- “Voltaire”

Translation: “All the ancient histories, as one of our great minds used to say, are only fables agreed upon...”

A fable is a tale to teach us a “moral” lesson -- a story not founded on fact. I happen to agree with Voltaire in this instance (although Internet sources attribute this quote to Napoleon, at a much later time, of course). This is an interpretation of History we do well to keep firmly in mind... even though Voltaire was speaking about “ancient history” it is more so the case for “recent history.” All History we may choose to read about, especially as it has been produced in Academia for public school consumption, is merely the repetition of a “fable convenue.” What I like to call a “convenient fable.”

Who will deny that we currently live in an epoch, in a cultural age, too “accustomed to lying,” too ready to embrace “the lie” wholeheartedly and with open arms? Doesn’t this type of critique ring a bell? And, it’s not just that we actually and fully live within Maya (in the Hindu and Vedic sense of “delusion”) but that our “knowledge of the vital air” (that which is breathed in as Atma) is purely abstract and intellectualized and so easily falsified. We’re living in a time of “flip-flops” (and I don’t mean the footwear) where the apparently “deep” is merely an in-bred prejudice and an a priori judgment. Our time, even our Zeitgeist, is one wherein the past is being erased before our very eyes by very irresponsible people (most of which are our “voted” representatives) who can only see their own immediate gain, because they live in an un-rooted (possibly uprooted) present. (“Without the firm ground of the past beneath your feet, you’re a tree without roots.” If someone wise didn’t say that, they should have! If not, I should quote it more often and attribute it to Yours Truly).

Doesn’t it seems as if History, as we’ve come to know it, is a “convenient fable,” a fable “agreed upon” by those who lord over us? We receive this History as fact, instead of interpretation, and we meekly form all our judgments and prejudices based on such fables, for we are, if anything, conscientious (and sometimes unconscious) members of a “civilized” society. History’s “accuracy” (i.e., its interpretation) depends on who “controls the present” (as George Orwell so keenly pointed out). If you trust the mental midgets running things today... well, I wish you lots of luck with that one.

So what is my hidden objection in this type of question? It is one of perspective. If there are no facts, only interpretations, then it’s of some consequence what that interpretation aims at. Does it perpetuate an old prejudice? Does it “invert” it? I’ll displease many, but my inclination is for “inverting” it -- all of it -- History, Prejudices, Values, the whole lot. And, in the end, is that not the task of any Age? To invert the previous Age’s most cherished “values” and repudiate them as “pure evil”?

To get back to our “history”... I suspect that I get this question about “historical accuracy” simply because I’ve chosen to portray the Ancient Egyptians against type. That is, against the conventional Hollywood type. The “fable convenue” about the Ancient Egyptians is not unlike what’s been suffered by Native-Americans for most of the 20^th Century (and for 400 years before that!). They were savages! They were cruel, bloodthirsty slave owners par excellence. That this is an improbable and unsustainable point-of-view is never  really questioned in our “popular culture” because it has already become a deeply-rooted and long-held prejudice. So suffice it to say I’m “rewriting history” from the side of the “losers,” which in this instance is the Ancient Egyptians themselves. 

The Black Land

(First in a series exploring the geography and ecology of Ancient Egypt and its surroundings)

Egyptologists have been telling us since the late 19^th Century that the name “Kemet” (the Black Land or “Black Earth”) was the name the Black People gave to their country because of the rich, dark mud the Nile River left behind every Inundation. The Nile River flooded every year before the Aswan High Dam was built and Lake Nasser created in the 1960s. In the past, the soil was so fertile that it is widely believed that it allowed the Ancient Egyptians two and sometimes more harvests per year.

None of this is controversial, of course. It’s easy to believe and quite credible that the sediments carried by the Great River over the millennia from its east African drainage basin, and possibly from the equatorial rain forests of central Africa, brought with them nutrient-rich sediments northward with the flow of the Nile. These then accumulated along the banks of the Great River and over the eons, filled the Nile Delta. Thus the Delta grew into the Mediterranean like a fan-shaped intrusion, resembling the blossoming petals of the lotus flower (the water lily).

Recently I was reading about “Black Earth” within a whole different context -- the Amazon jungle of Mato Grosso (“thick bush” in Portuguese). Recent research in the area has revealed some very interesting things -- from the “lost city” of El Dorado to something a little more interesting even than that mirage -- namely “terra preta” or “black earth” in Portuguese. This appears to be a purely anthropogenic soil created by indigenous people during an estimated period ranging from hundreds to thousands of years.

Terra preta contains high concentrations of low-temperature charcoal, high quantities of pottery shards, organic matter (plant residues, animal faeces, fish and animal bones), and nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, zinc, and manganese, among other materials. High levels of micro-organic activity are evident in the soil and the soil itself is less prone to nutrient leaching, which is a major problem in most rain forests. This is rich, black soil with a high degree of organic content. In other words, it appears as if the ancient people of the Amazon basin were very active “composting” their waste to revitalize the soil for many centuries. Something that we've dropped the ball on as a society since the Hippies disappeared and Monsanto has taken over... in order to destroy our soil and our agriculture.

It’d be an interesting thing to study whether this kind of “terra preta” activity occurred in Ancient Egypt also. Could the Black People have “composted” just as the Amazonians certainly did? Perhaps. The Black People were not a wasteful people and above all they were extremely practical. The question is: Under what ecological conditions did the Ancient Egyptians actually live. I certainly find it hard to believe that they lived in the desert that the modern Egyptian lives in. I’m of the opinion that the desertification of the Sahara (the northward movement of the Sahara as a desert) probably had a significant impact at the end of the Ancient Egyptian civilization (let's say from the period beginning with the Persian invasion and rule around 525 to 332 B.C., with a brief interlude of independence, until Alexander the Great ended the Achaemenid reign in the Nile).

I can’t imagine that 3,000 to 5,000 years ago the Nile Valley was just an oasis in the middle of a desert, as it is today. My take is that it was probably, at worst, a Savannah, and more than likely, a far wetter environment than what we find today. From the research I’ve done on the Battle of Megiddo for “The Horizon Keeper,” and especially on the Gaza Strip, which was the main fortification line the Black People used as their “buffer zone” against the Red People immediately to the north (the Palestinians, Mitanni, etc.) is that both the Mediterranean and the Red Sea were much higher and therefore that isthmus was far “narrower” than it appears on our maps today. I was able to determine that along the Gaza Strip the sea receded and there was far more “fresh water” available in lakes and lagoons than there is today.

In other words, the Middle East has been suffering from an ongoing millennial process of “desertification,” just as the Iberian Peninsula and southern Spain, specifically, is undergoing today. Rainfall drops off, soil is depleted, and rivers, channels, and ports are made useless under accumulating sediments and human activity (including waste production). This ancient desertification is not as evident on the littoral of the Mediterranean Basin as it is somewhat to the south in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea.

For example, the fortress city of Tjaru, the frontier of the Two Lands in 1457 B.C. and the “Port Said” of the ancient world, was on the coast of the Mediterranean -- 47 kilometres from where Port Said is today. In other words, the Mediterranean Sea has receded that far in 3,000 years (or at least, some approximation of that distance).

Where the “Great Bitter Lake” now breaks up the narrows of the Suez Canal, the whole area was under the waters of the Gulf of Suez 3,500 years ago. Naturally, these are not “earth-shaking” revelations. Nevertheless, more water where land now stands dry is the product of desertification and that process does cause the climate to change (if anything, simple Physics tells us that refraction and reflection of sunlight from the ground alone warms up the air).

I don’t want to turn this into a scientific treatise. The point I want to make is that it’s easily conceivable that the Black People were aware that the Red Land (the desert) was active and actually gaining on them. They may have implemented strategies to ameliorate that undesired effect.