No. Re was an Egyptian Neter. Neters are cosmic or universal principles.
Countless hymns extol him as the divine power opening each day.
This is closer. The rising etc of the Sun (the star/planet) is symbolic of a particular universal principle (or principles). Re is more than just the Sun.
‘Homage to thee, O thou who risest in the horizon as Ra,
thou restest upon law unchangeable and unalterable.’
‘Re is the great light who shinest in the heavens.’
This is philosophical. The Sun shines in the sky (and upon the Earth). The cosmic principle which is called Re is the great light who shines in the heavens (universe).
Just becauses it says ‘light’ it does not necessarily follow that it is referring to visible- or sun- light.
Sounds very much like the sun to me.
This is because of your overly-simplistic view and your ignorance of ancient philosophy.
“In the spirit of the temple, Sirius plays the role of the great central fire for our sun (which is the eye of Ra and not Ra himself).” Schwaller, Sacred Science, p28.
“Ra is the Sun absolute. The Eye of Ra is the visible sun, giver of vitalising light and warmth, but also of burning fire. Aton is the solar disc, the sun’s materialisation. The Eye of Ra plays a very important role in the myth because it is the source of all life, this life which Horus represents in his function as subtle and sublimated fire. In legendary form it is said that one day ‘Ra had sent forth his Eye which did not return. So Ra sent Shu and Tefnut to bring it back… But the Eye was outraged when it returned because it found that another had grown in its stead’. And then Ra took the Eye and placed it on his brow in the likeness of a serpent. Since then, the solar Eye governs the entire world because this serpent became the symbol of Ra’s puissance. It is since that day that Shu was called Onuris which means He-Who-Has-Brought-Back-the-Far-off-Distance.
By this fact, the Eye of Ra which this Neter bears on his brow becomes the radiating Eye, the divine Word. It thus becomes the uraeus, the third eye of the King’s forehead, powerful protector and destroyer of Ra’s enemies….” Sacred Science, pp150-51.
“As has been said, Ra is not the sun itself, but rather the solar energy which, during the course of its daily cycle, animates all the organic functions of the human body, one after another, at each hour of the day and night. It is in this way that we are subject to it.” Sacred Science, p157.
“The hours of the day are to be found only in the tomb of Ramses VI, given with the name of the door preceding each hour, the name of the hour itself, and the name of the Neter which acts as its protector and also as guide to the solar barque. Certain details are given concerning the different phases. Toward the middle of the day, for instance, Ra must cross a sandbank and struggle against the serpent Apopis, the searing fire that has dried out the river. With noon, however, there begins the hour known as expansion of the heart, the hour which rises for Horus. During the ninth hour of the day (2 p.m. to 3 p.m.), Ra’s boat crosses the Iaru fields where barley and wheat grow five cubits high and are harvested by spirits. This hour bears the name of Mistress of Life, the hour when all nourishment is sublimated. This is an eloquent teaching on the correspondence of the time of the day with organic life in general. For Chinese acupuncture, noon is the hour of the heart, and 2 p.m. the hour of the small intestine.
It is in this fashion that texts and images are to be interpreted.” Sacred Science, p160.
All emphais in the original.
The Egyptians do show the sun circular! Even in hieroglyphic form it represents either the sun, day or time (How to read Hieroglyphs, Collier & Manley)
My mistake, I should have been more exact in my wording. Circular yes, but not as a (perfect) circle. See the image provided by MattEU at the top of this thread for instance. Either way, I’ll stick with Schwaller rather than the Egyptologists.
You are ascribing complected minds cultures that had the misfortune of living through 3,000 years of chaos
[I’m assuming you meant complex or complicated minds here]. You have absolutely zero proof that any culture lived through 3,000 years of chaos. Your inference that the people of these ancient cultures did not possess ‘complex or complicated’ minds is based entirely upon your own arrogance which is in turn based upon your own ignorance. Have you ever read any ancient literature? I approach ancient literature with the assumption that these people were smarter than me. That is one of the ways that I learn. Approaching such literature as the work of primitive minds only results in the confirmation of one’s own prejudices and ignorance, and leads to cognitive dissonance.
A very basic question: the Egyptians had some 2000 gods in all, how many gods do you need to explain one of the most sunniest and driest climates in the world?
A very basic answer: They did not have any gods; they had Neters. Nor did they have two thousand of them. There may well be 2,000 different names but the vast majority of these will be the names given to a particular aspect of a particular Neter.
The second part of your question is a non sequitur. The number of gods or Neters has nothing to do with an explanation of the climate. If you believe that Egyptian mythology is nothing more than a glorified weather report then you have missed the point. Do you think that African or Aboriginal mythology is also nothing more than an explanation of a sunny and dry climate? Conversely, do you think that Nordic myth is only an explanation of a cold and damp climate?
I look at all sources and draw my own conclusions I think its very unproductive and naive to see one source as gospel. Vigorous debate goes on between all Egyptologists as to interpreting the enigmatic world of the Egyptians.
No you do not. You have read Velikovsky and drawn your conclusions from him. You have relied on mainstream academia for your information on Egypt but ignored it when it does not agree with your neo-Velikovskyism. You study Egypt in isolation from other ancient cultures.
Vigorous debate goes on in academia because they are no closer to understanding Egypt today than they were a century ago. And for similar reasons to those you suffer from.
I do not treat Schwaller as gospel. I trust him as an author because his views on Egypt are in agreement with the views of other authors on other ancient cultures, and he is not a one-trick pony who has only studied Egypt. He is nevertheless the best writer on Egypt I have come across and I heartily recommend him. You should try him, though I suspect cognitive dissonance will kick in and you will dismiss him.
Your explanation of colours is based upon your preconceptions and prejudices, not on Egyptian philosophy. If there was all this going on in the sky for several thousand years, why is it that in not one ancient culture, did anyone not just write down what was happening? Why did they not just paint it?
If you took time to understand the basis of my theory you would soon realize this couldn’t be further from the truth. My advantage over you and others is I’m able to take much of Egyptian art at face value. I've no need to meditate or invoke an altered state of consciousness to understand the ancients, just plain simple observations mixed in with a little common sense - and of course a bit of Velikovsky!
I looked at your website a year or two ago. Taking anything ancient (or modern for that matter) at face value is not an advantage, it is naivety.
With regard to meditation etc, you are arguing from ignorance. If all it took to understand ancient Egypt was the taking of things a face value and a little common sense then surely even the scholars would have worked it out after over a century of trying?
I don’t know what you are on but good luck with this and your dismissal of academic scholars. As you seem to have sorted everything out in regards to the ancients perhaps you should write a book and inform us all.
I smoke pot but one does not need to be on anything in order to meditate. Again you are arguing from ignorance and prejudice. I have not sorted out everything in regards to the ancients. On the contrary, I still have much to learn unlike you who, armed with Velikovsky, taking things at face value and a little common sense, have all the answers. My purpose in this thread (and others) was and is try to show that there is more to understanding an ancient culture than the simplistic literalist approach. This is especially true of the Egyptians. I don’t have the ego either to write a book or to write-off some of the greatest minds that humanity has thus far produced.
Although I hasten to add, I'd be very reluctant to purchase any book written by somebody in an "altered state of consciousness." Personally, I like to sit with the real world.
There you go again with your ignorance and prejudice. Are you suggetsing that it is possible to go to a non- or un- real world?