Today I was re-reading the essays of a favorite artist of mine: Jonathon Earl Bowser and encountered a name that stopped me in my tracks: Nephthys
I don't believe I've given any explanation of the landing address for my blog before, but today it seems I should.
Several years ago I was pondering chakras and all the information around them and I thought that there should be more than seven. I imagined there to be three chakras below the root and three chakras above the crown. Each known chakra has a name in Hindu, so when I diagrammed out the additional six chakras, I let names for them come from wherever information comes.
The very top chakra, the 13th, the spot I considered to be the highest any human could reach, the word that came forth was "Nepthi". Out of curiosity, I've searched the word several times and have not come up with anything specific. It seems to be a name given to some, but other than that I had not found any substantial information. Nonetheless, I liked it enough to use it as the address here - nepthi.blogspot.com
So today as I'm reading and I've come across this name - Nephthys, I immediately recognized it to be akin to Nepthi, the word I made up from nowhere. It refers to an egyptian goddess... so I looked her up. I was quite surprised that what I found out about her is not unlike what I had considered Nepthi to be.
She is depicted with symbols atop her head which seperately represent "Mistress or Lady" and "Sacred Temple Enclosure". One possible meaning of Sacred Temple Enclosure is the temple within each of us, the mustard seed Christ spoke of, or our soul. She is also representative of the gateway entrance to the temple. The door to becoming eternal - more than human.
Also associated with her is the Akhet, depicted by a symbol shaped like a circle in a valley, remeniscent of Omega in the greek alphabet.
It is speculated that the egyptians viewed her as a morbid but crucial force of heavenly transition, she was the path to death and her sister Isis the path to rebirth.
The Akhet is a symbol which is part of the egyptian name for the great pyramid: Akhet Khufu, and the season known as Akhet is when the Nile floods - the season of inundation.
This strikes me more than anything - Jesus spoke of the overflowing waters of life, and clearly refered to something more intangible than water itself. Here we have a goddess, a symbol and a season whose name I had associated with 13 - the Christ - that has ties back to an inundation of water.
I finally found Nephthys after several years of wondering where the name came from, and it turns out she's everything I had associated with that name.
It's possible I had encountered the name before and not remembered it, but I think it unlikely that I'd have learned so much about Nephthys and still not remembered the name. The information I "understood" about the word Nepthi is greater than what I know about Isis, and I've actually studied Isis (I even had a pet bunny I named Isis!) But, regardless of how I came by this information, whether a connection to some unknown source of knowledge or by forgetting I had read the information, I'm happy to finally know what the connection is and have such confirmation of the ideas.
So now you know what Nepthi is :)
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Roots of Christianity
We know what Christianity says and does today, and regardless of your stance or belief in the religion I feel it is important to explore its roots and why it has the message that it has today.
This is of special importance to me because while I follow the words spoken by Jesus, the remainder of the beliefs and dogma of Christianity leave a sour taste in my mouth. I've long been unable to name exactly what it is about the religion that feels wrong, but I have finally reached an understanding as to where and how the changes were made in Christianity that lead the religion away from the teachings of Christ and his true meaning.
After the death of Christ, all that was known of him was left to the people of the time and to his disciples. The two centuries that followed his death until the religion of Christianity was relatively settled into what we know today saw lots of change and turmoil. As the apostles went out to share their message, the words themselves were spread but the meaning may have been lost as the words were spread. Some of the apostles may not have been as true to the meaning as we've assumed they were.
I think that when Christ worked directly with his apostles, he was able to guide and show them the path. Then, when they moved to share it with others, they could show them some of it... and the teachings degraded from there. Eventually you get to the coalescing of the various writings into a volume, decided upon by the Council Of Nicaea.
The Nicaean conference was a platform that decided which of the many available texts were to be considered canon and which were not. Presumably copies of all of those not selected to be included were destroyed to cement the decision and to help direct the path of Christianity.
What we have as the Bible today is primarily what was decided by that council around the third century AD.
The non-canonical texts which were rejected disagreed with the beliefs of that council. This does not mean that the texts are invalid, only that this one council of bishops decided they didn't like the texts and felt they were heretical.
This is the sticking point of the entire situation: a group of a few hundred men decided that certain books were ok and certain others were not. These few hundred men were each bishops, with deacons and priests and congregations below them. They each had their own decided way of running their churches. They chose books that gave continuity to their cause - or did not take away continuity.
We know that human beings are falliable, and we know that these men were part of an empire which had just recently begun converting to Christianity and was about to make it huge. These men stood at the precipice, poised in the oh-so-perfect spot to influence millions of people to come. Of course they didn't know that, at least not to the degree that we do today. I suspect it was quite an honor to be able to be a part of this, to cast each of their votes on the many issues brought before the council.
But today we also know that people can and will do what benefits them the most. Looking at the governmental system in the U.S., there are two such councils of men so that the two can (theoretically) balance each other out. It is generally accepted that not only is several hundred men all voting their own way good enough, but having two seperate councils of over a hundred men is better. And even then, both councils as a whole are distrusted by the majority because they seem to pass laws that benefit them or play to their individual senses.
By looking at Congress and the general opinion of it, we can apply this method of thought to the Council of Nicaea. We can also apply the general opinion of the Catholic church, as the council was the beginnings of that church. Granted the church has many members and believers, but they have also acted in ways that have shocked and saddened many in the world. There is a certain impression that comes with the words "Roman Catholic" and in some circles it may as well be a joke.
So, knowing all of this, I ask why on earth we should trust what this council decided all those years ago. Who were they to pick and choose what would become the Christian religion? Because of this situation, I feel it is incredibly important to read not only the texts which were included in the Bible but also those that were not. Books which were rejected include some of those in the Dead See Scrolls and in the Nag Hammadi library. (links at end)
It may be that the men of this council had our best interests at heart, but as they were neither God himself, nor the Christ, nor had they any direct contact with the Christ, we cannot trust that they were correct or accurate in their decisions and as this occured so long ago, we cannot assume that they held anyone's interests except for their own.
From this we should understand that there are chapters in the Bible that probaly should not be there and there are things missing from the Bible that could be terribly important. And, we have no way of knowing which is which.
The best clue we have is the words of Jesus himself. Take his words, and in trying to understand them read the other books of the Bible, and those which were not included. You may come to find the next piece of the puzzle that leads us to understand where modern Christianity came from...
A large number of chapters of the New Testament consists of letters written by Paul to various churches. In these letters, he proceeds to specify how the scriptures are to be understood and how the church should worship and spread information out to it's followers.
To me, these do not sound like something that should be included, after all it is the writing of just one man expressing his views on the subject. The writings of a single person can be incorrect, which is why it is useful that we have multiple gospels telling of the same stories. This allows us to see what they agreed upon and what they disagreed upon. So, simply on the basis of Paul being a single person writing the letters they are questionable.
They become further questionable when you begin to read them and compare what was said by Paul to what was said by Jesus. It may be a simple question of semantics, but Paul tends to word things in a very different manner and creates an all-together different image of salvation as offered by Jesus.
To put the difference in the simplest, non contextual terms:
Jesus: Salvation is not for everyone, it does not come easy, it requires giving up everything dear to you in the name of following Christ and following his path.
Paul: Salvation is a free gift from God, all you have to do is accept and the blood of Jesus magically redeems you.
These two messages are drastically different. And, most ironically, Christianity today seems far more based on the word of Paul than on the word of Christ. Should we begin calling it Paulism in order to differentiate the two ideas in the minds of the masses? Probably... but it's not likely to happen.
Here we have two major examples, one of a single person driving the entire ideology of the church, and another of a small group of church elites picking and choosing what was to become the one book to influence a major religion.
What are we to believe?
My suggestion is reading all of the texts available to you - from every major religion and every culture which has existed. It would likely take an entire lifetime (the Hindu texts put the Bible to shame with their length) but you have to start somewhere. If your interest lies in the Bible, then a good place to start would be with the non-canonical texts which were rejected from the original Bible. Keep in mind we cannot know the motivations of those who made the selections, and each text whether canonical or otherwise should be read for itself, pondered, and considered as possible truth but not guaranteed truth. Resonate what you learn in your heart of hearts and do not allow yourself to make any rash decisions. Re-reading the texts later can help too, as your frame of mind will have changed and will allow you to see them in a different light.
Don't give up on your search, as the journey is often more important than the destination.
Links:
Nag Hammadi Library
The Gospel of Thomas
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Gospel of Judas
This is of special importance to me because while I follow the words spoken by Jesus, the remainder of the beliefs and dogma of Christianity leave a sour taste in my mouth. I've long been unable to name exactly what it is about the religion that feels wrong, but I have finally reached an understanding as to where and how the changes were made in Christianity that lead the religion away from the teachings of Christ and his true meaning.
After the death of Christ, all that was known of him was left to the people of the time and to his disciples. The two centuries that followed his death until the religion of Christianity was relatively settled into what we know today saw lots of change and turmoil. As the apostles went out to share their message, the words themselves were spread but the meaning may have been lost as the words were spread. Some of the apostles may not have been as true to the meaning as we've assumed they were.
I think that when Christ worked directly with his apostles, he was able to guide and show them the path. Then, when they moved to share it with others, they could show them some of it... and the teachings degraded from there. Eventually you get to the coalescing of the various writings into a volume, decided upon by the Council Of Nicaea.
The Nicaean conference was a platform that decided which of the many available texts were to be considered canon and which were not. Presumably copies of all of those not selected to be included were destroyed to cement the decision and to help direct the path of Christianity.
What we have as the Bible today is primarily what was decided by that council around the third century AD.
The non-canonical texts which were rejected disagreed with the beliefs of that council. This does not mean that the texts are invalid, only that this one council of bishops decided they didn't like the texts and felt they were heretical.
This is the sticking point of the entire situation: a group of a few hundred men decided that certain books were ok and certain others were not. These few hundred men were each bishops, with deacons and priests and congregations below them. They each had their own decided way of running their churches. They chose books that gave continuity to their cause - or did not take away continuity.
We know that human beings are falliable, and we know that these men were part of an empire which had just recently begun converting to Christianity and was about to make it huge. These men stood at the precipice, poised in the oh-so-perfect spot to influence millions of people to come. Of course they didn't know that, at least not to the degree that we do today. I suspect it was quite an honor to be able to be a part of this, to cast each of their votes on the many issues brought before the council.
But today we also know that people can and will do what benefits them the most. Looking at the governmental system in the U.S., there are two such councils of men so that the two can (theoretically) balance each other out. It is generally accepted that not only is several hundred men all voting their own way good enough, but having two seperate councils of over a hundred men is better. And even then, both councils as a whole are distrusted by the majority because they seem to pass laws that benefit them or play to their individual senses.
By looking at Congress and the general opinion of it, we can apply this method of thought to the Council of Nicaea. We can also apply the general opinion of the Catholic church, as the council was the beginnings of that church. Granted the church has many members and believers, but they have also acted in ways that have shocked and saddened many in the world. There is a certain impression that comes with the words "Roman Catholic" and in some circles it may as well be a joke.
So, knowing all of this, I ask why on earth we should trust what this council decided all those years ago. Who were they to pick and choose what would become the Christian religion? Because of this situation, I feel it is incredibly important to read not only the texts which were included in the Bible but also those that were not. Books which were rejected include some of those in the Dead See Scrolls and in the Nag Hammadi library. (links at end)
It may be that the men of this council had our best interests at heart, but as they were neither God himself, nor the Christ, nor had they any direct contact with the Christ, we cannot trust that they were correct or accurate in their decisions and as this occured so long ago, we cannot assume that they held anyone's interests except for their own.
From this we should understand that there are chapters in the Bible that probaly should not be there and there are things missing from the Bible that could be terribly important. And, we have no way of knowing which is which.
The best clue we have is the words of Jesus himself. Take his words, and in trying to understand them read the other books of the Bible, and those which were not included. You may come to find the next piece of the puzzle that leads us to understand where modern Christianity came from...
A large number of chapters of the New Testament consists of letters written by Paul to various churches. In these letters, he proceeds to specify how the scriptures are to be understood and how the church should worship and spread information out to it's followers.
To me, these do not sound like something that should be included, after all it is the writing of just one man expressing his views on the subject. The writings of a single person can be incorrect, which is why it is useful that we have multiple gospels telling of the same stories. This allows us to see what they agreed upon and what they disagreed upon. So, simply on the basis of Paul being a single person writing the letters they are questionable.
They become further questionable when you begin to read them and compare what was said by Paul to what was said by Jesus. It may be a simple question of semantics, but Paul tends to word things in a very different manner and creates an all-together different image of salvation as offered by Jesus.
To put the difference in the simplest, non contextual terms:
Jesus: Salvation is not for everyone, it does not come easy, it requires giving up everything dear to you in the name of following Christ and following his path.
Paul: Salvation is a free gift from God, all you have to do is accept and the blood of Jesus magically redeems you.
These two messages are drastically different. And, most ironically, Christianity today seems far more based on the word of Paul than on the word of Christ. Should we begin calling it Paulism in order to differentiate the two ideas in the minds of the masses? Probably... but it's not likely to happen.
Here we have two major examples, one of a single person driving the entire ideology of the church, and another of a small group of church elites picking and choosing what was to become the one book to influence a major religion.
What are we to believe?
My suggestion is reading all of the texts available to you - from every major religion and every culture which has existed. It would likely take an entire lifetime (the Hindu texts put the Bible to shame with their length) but you have to start somewhere. If your interest lies in the Bible, then a good place to start would be with the non-canonical texts which were rejected from the original Bible. Keep in mind we cannot know the motivations of those who made the selections, and each text whether canonical or otherwise should be read for itself, pondered, and considered as possible truth but not guaranteed truth. Resonate what you learn in your heart of hearts and do not allow yourself to make any rash decisions. Re-reading the texts later can help too, as your frame of mind will have changed and will allow you to see them in a different light.
Don't give up on your search, as the journey is often more important than the destination.
Links:
Nag Hammadi Library
The Gospel of Thomas
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Gospel of Judas
Saturday, February 11, 2012
The Super-Super-Super String Theory
Many years ago I had first discovered a site about NDE's and was reading through them when I came across the experience of Lynnclaire Dennis. I was facinated by her journey and more so by the image she encountered which she called The Pattern. At the time I didn't have a specific interest in physics but I felt, as she did, that The Pattern described a fundamental structure of existance.
Fast forward to a few years later and I thought of it again, and began to form an idea of how the pattern fit into the puzzle when I happened upon the idea of String Theory. My immediate reaction was that the Pattern is the String. The visual image of the pattern makes sense to what the Strings are theorized to be (you can find images of the pattern here among other things).
The reason that this is coming up today relates to my last post about the scale of repeated images/movement in the universe, and because I stumbled upon this: Looking beyond the big bang ?
I've been thinking that time is cyclical, and that the big bang wasn't actually the start of anything but a point in a cycle. The universe continuously contracts and expands, time and space themselves continually contract and expand. I think that the pattern/string is not just at the heart of matter but is the structure of existance on a large scale as well.
Try to think in two dimensions: you see a line (which is two dimensional, length and height), and within that line are single points (which are one dimensional, height only, they must be added together to create length)***. Each of those single points is a place in time and the line itself is the movement of time. Those single points are a snapshot, and each snapshot has three dimensions and the whole of our universe within.
So we have our three dimensional universe, which moves through time as a series of snapshots. Think about a high speed camera, snapping multiple frames per second. Each of those frames represents a singluar moment in time but captures all three dimensions. Those frames stack upon one another to form the line, and the line itself loops.
We have the image of a static loop. It is a circle (which ironically is one of the most basic images relating to life and existance). In order for time to continue, the circle has to move in some way but it also stays in place... it oscillates.
Let's look to another mental image: a hula hoop. Imagine that inside the hula hoop is a ball bearing, and as the hula hoop swings about the hips, this ball bearing is caused to move in a smooth flow around and around the hoop. If the hoop stops, the bearing will stop as well. Now imagine that bearing is the three-dimensional snapshot of our universe, and as it moves through the hoop it is moving through time. Each time it circles around is a single oscillation of the pattern. As the pattern moves, the bearing moves, and without the movement of the pattern the bearing will stop.
Visualize the shape of the pattern as a streak of light in a void: oscillating as a gleaming point of light moves about it's shape, following the contours of the line. As the pattern expands and contracts, the point moves through age after age after age, growing and shrinking with the pattern. At it's smallest is the moment of the big bang, and at it's most expanded the universe is also at it's greatest point of expansion. This would appear very quick from such a far back viewpoint, but as you move in closer and closer, close enough that you're inside the universe and can see the stars and planets, the movemement that took seconds now takes billions upon billions upon billions of years. The further you go into the great scale of the universe, the slower time appears to move until you reach our solar system, our planet, our lives, and things move at the pace we've become accustomed to.
What will they find once this underground telescope is built and they try to peer beyond the big bang to see what, if anything, happened before it? I suspect that prior to the expansion there was an equal contraction of a prior universe... following the equal and opposite reaction law of physics into a scale so far beyond our everyday comprehension that it's more than mind boggling, it's astronomical.
Pun intended.
*** If you have the time and would like to better understand the concepts I'm talking about with lines and points on those lines, refer to this story: Flatland It is lengthy but very much worth the read, as it explores the concepts of the dimensions as I've not heard before.
Fast forward to a few years later and I thought of it again, and began to form an idea of how the pattern fit into the puzzle when I happened upon the idea of String Theory. My immediate reaction was that the Pattern is the String. The visual image of the pattern makes sense to what the Strings are theorized to be (you can find images of the pattern here among other things).
The reason that this is coming up today relates to my last post about the scale of repeated images/movement in the universe, and because I stumbled upon this: Looking beyond the big bang ?
I've been thinking that time is cyclical, and that the big bang wasn't actually the start of anything but a point in a cycle. The universe continuously contracts and expands, time and space themselves continually contract and expand. I think that the pattern/string is not just at the heart of matter but is the structure of existance on a large scale as well.
Try to think in two dimensions: you see a line (which is two dimensional, length and height), and within that line are single points (which are one dimensional, height only, they must be added together to create length)***. Each of those single points is a place in time and the line itself is the movement of time. Those single points are a snapshot, and each snapshot has three dimensions and the whole of our universe within.
So we have our three dimensional universe, which moves through time as a series of snapshots. Think about a high speed camera, snapping multiple frames per second. Each of those frames represents a singluar moment in time but captures all three dimensions. Those frames stack upon one another to form the line, and the line itself loops.
We have the image of a static loop. It is a circle (which ironically is one of the most basic images relating to life and existance). In order for time to continue, the circle has to move in some way but it also stays in place... it oscillates.
Let's look to another mental image: a hula hoop. Imagine that inside the hula hoop is a ball bearing, and as the hula hoop swings about the hips, this ball bearing is caused to move in a smooth flow around and around the hoop. If the hoop stops, the bearing will stop as well. Now imagine that bearing is the three-dimensional snapshot of our universe, and as it moves through the hoop it is moving through time. Each time it circles around is a single oscillation of the pattern. As the pattern moves, the bearing moves, and without the movement of the pattern the bearing will stop.
Visualize the shape of the pattern as a streak of light in a void: oscillating as a gleaming point of light moves about it's shape, following the contours of the line. As the pattern expands and contracts, the point moves through age after age after age, growing and shrinking with the pattern. At it's smallest is the moment of the big bang, and at it's most expanded the universe is also at it's greatest point of expansion. This would appear very quick from such a far back viewpoint, but as you move in closer and closer, close enough that you're inside the universe and can see the stars and planets, the movemement that took seconds now takes billions upon billions upon billions of years. The further you go into the great scale of the universe, the slower time appears to move until you reach our solar system, our planet, our lives, and things move at the pace we've become accustomed to.
What will they find once this underground telescope is built and they try to peer beyond the big bang to see what, if anything, happened before it? I suspect that prior to the expansion there was an equal contraction of a prior universe... following the equal and opposite reaction law of physics into a scale so far beyond our everyday comprehension that it's more than mind boggling, it's astronomical.
Pun intended.
*** If you have the time and would like to better understand the concepts I'm talking about with lines and points on those lines, refer to this story: Flatland It is lengthy but very much worth the read, as it explores the concepts of the dimensions as I've not heard before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)