Grid of the Gods
Page 31
However, it may be objected that reading Pythagoreanism’s most sacred symbol back into Egypt and its pyramids is a bit of an anachronism, and hence, begging the question. This problemdeserves some attention, for it directly addresses the problem of the relationship of the post-Cosmic War elites, the monuments — or machines — they left behind, and the attempts of their successors in the mystery schools to interpret and understand them. Schwaller understood this process well, for he was not reading Pythagoreanism back into Egypt, but rather, arguing that their teachings were based both upon their long heritage and connection with a lost and vanished civilization, and upon observation of and reflection upon the man-made mountains of stone that surrounded them. The machines were the texts, and the Pythagoreans their interpreters.
A. The Pyramids as Texts:
Gematria and Esoteric Approaches to the Pyramids
But if this be the case, is there any further evidence that the Pyramids were the source for other types of esoteric speculation, and, if so, does that speculation disclose further clues corroborating the idea that they were conceived, esoterically at least, as analogical, alchemical, and hyper-dimensional machines?
These is indeed such evidence, and it comes from the ancient esoteric science of gematria.
Gematria is the practice of assigning numerical values to certain letters of an ancient alphabet. Anyone who has studied ancient Greek, or Hebrew, for example, knows that the letters of those alphabets were also assigned numerical values and, indeed, were used as numbers. This fact gave rise to a practice of looking for numerical codes embedded within ancient texts. Not surprisingly, there were numerous examples of the phenomenon.
We noted in the previous chapter that the pyramidal form was a three dimensional analogue to the primordial mound from which, in the ancient cosmologies, everything arose. It is thus also symbolic, as it were, of the primordial “phallus,” symbolic of the
instruments of the union between cosmic and terrestrial force by which the earth is made fertile. The same symbolism is apparent in the word πυραµις (pyramid), of which the number in gematria is831, this number being also obtained by the addition of the values of the letters in the word φαλλος (phallus).2
The point, once again, is not the anachronistic reading of Greek gematria into the time of the Giza pyramids, but rather the fact that for esoteric tradition, there was evidence that they exercised a hold over the imagination, which sought to explain them in functional terms, as machines manipulating the cosmic forces of creation itself.3
Michell himself, whom we have cited above, also points out another esoteric significance, represented by the Great Pyramid and its nearly perfect construction:
It has, however, often been observed that the Great Pyramid is not apparently of native Egyptian construction. Like the earliest and most perfect temples of Mexico, it related to world geography in a way which indicates that it belonged to some universal system in the forgotten past. Ever and again, studies of ancient civilizations trace them back from their declines to their high origins — beyond which the trail ends, with no trace of any previous period of cultural development. The great riddle in the quest for the origin of human culture is that civilizations appear suddenly, at their peak, as if ready-made.4
The Great Pyramid — and to a lesser extent as we shall see, the other large pyramid of Giza — thus symbolizes, in its perfection, the riddle of the rise of civilizations itself, for it one grants it an antiquity pre-dating Egypt itself, then who built it, and why? That question, as we shall discover, is intimately related to the cosmological and quantum physics knowledge encoded at Nabta Playa.
However, given that the esoteric tradition was capable of viewing the pyramids of Giza in general and the Great Pyramid in particular in functional terms, as manipulators of the cosmic forces of creation,one is entitled to view them as alchemical works, on a planetary scale.5
It was, in fact, one of Napoleon’s scientists and scholars, who accompanied the future French Emperor on his abortive expedition to Egypt, E.-F. Jomard, who first observed that the Great Pyramid’s builders had to have had “an accurate knowledge of the earth and the solar system, and that its inner King’s Chamber was air-conditioned by vents to hold an even temperature, thus making it an ideal repository for standards of weight and measure.”6 Indeed, as I observed in The Giza Death Star, the Great Pyramid functions as an analogue of nearly every known property of local physical and celestial mechanics, including, in my opinion, encoding various coefficients of the constants of quantum mechanics, just as Nabta Playa also encoded stunning astronomical and quantum mechanical data.7
A review of some of these analogues in the Great Pyramid is in order, for they point, at the minimum, to its heavily alchemical and functional purpose:
1) The structure appears, like so many other structures from ancient times, to embody systems of measure closely approximating the modern British imperial system of measurement, with the “pyramid inch” equal to about 1.0011 American, or 1.00108 British inches;8
2) The ratio of the apothem (the face slant to height) and the base of the Great Pyramid yields the value of the constant φ, which is 1.61818, the basis of the Fibonacci sequence (1,1,2,3,5,8,13..etc), a sequence not known until ca. 1200 A.D.;9
3) The approximate length of the base of the Pyramid, expressed in “pyramid cubits,” is 365.24 cubits, an analogue of the number of days in a year, which requires knowledge of celestial mechanics;10
4) The approximate height of the Pyramid times 109 is close to the mean radius of the Earth’s orbit around the sun;11
5) Doubling the perimeter of the bottom of the Coffer in the King’s Chamber, and multiplying it by 108 yields the mean distance to the Moon;12
6) The scale of 1:43200 is embodied in the pyramid, which, if one takes an approximate measure of its height, multiplies it by 43,200, yields 3938.684 miles, the approximate polar radius of the Earth.13
To top all this off — and it is but a short review of a much longer list — as I also pointed out, there are analogues of the coefficients of the Plank Constant, the Planck Length, and the Planck mass present in the structure, constants that would not be (re-) discovered until the early twentieth century.14
The confluence of the fact that so many analogues of celestial mechanics and of quantum mechanics are built into both the Great Pyramid and Nabta Playa, plus the fact that the three large pyramids of Giza conform to the placement of the three stars in the belt of Orion, suggest that one and the same basis of knowledge, if not the same group, was involved in the construction of both places.
That raises the chronological problem posed by Giza.
B. The Dating and Design of Giza, and the Chronology Problem
The problem of the dating of the Giza compound is complex, and recently became much more so with the revelation by Dr. Robert Schoch that the water-erosion on the Sphinx meant that it was far older than dynastic Egypt, requiring a date of between 5000-7000BC.15 But this, according to alternative researcher Alan Alford, implied that the whole question of dating the Giza compound itself had to be re-thought, for the compound itself as a whole was laid out according to an intricate geometrical plan, a plan which included the Great Pyramid, and that
encompassed the Sphinx, its temples, the causeway and Khafre’s pyramid, for it would seem that the position of the two Sphinx temples was determined by two intersection lines drawn from both of the two giant pyramids. Indeed, when we add to these relationships the common use of megalithic-style masonry in the temples of both (sic) Sphinx and pyramids, it is easy to see why Egyptologists view all the structures of Giza as intimately linked, and thus roughly contemporary. The important implication of this is that one reliable dating has the potential to date all structures on the Giza plateau, hence the redating of the Sphinx is not an isolated issue, but has fundamental implications for our understanding of Egyptian history, and particularly the so-called ‘Pyramid Age.’16
Close comparison of the constr
uction quality evident in the structures at Giza revealed to Alford that there are at least three levels, or periods, involved, and it is worth citing what I remarked about Alford’s conclusions in The Giza Death Star Deployed:
The Sphinx, the temples, and the two giant pyramids at Giza were already present at the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty, and (the pharaohs) Khufu and Khafre simply adopted and refurbished them, accounting for the radiocarbon dating anomalies. The society that designed and built the structures disappeared long before the Egyptians occupied them, with an intervening period where the site was maintained by a small and elite priesthood. Thus, in Alford’s scenario, there are three distinct levels of the cultural occupation of Giza:
• The first level, responsible for the original construction of the major structures…
•The second level, a “remnant” or elite priesthood left behind at, or that came to occupy, the site…
•The third level, the Egyptian civilization itself.17
Thus, adopting Alford’s conclusions and modifying them somewhat, I came to the conclusion that there were three levels, represented by three increasingly declining levels of construction perfection evident at Giza:
1) The oldest level, comprising the Great Pyramid itself, antedating ca. 10,000:
a) since the re-dated Sphinx belongs to the second “less perfect” level of construction evident at Giza;
b) since the Sphinx had been re-dated by Dr. Robert Schoch, based on its water erosion, to ca 5000-7000 BC; and,
c) since there are ancient traditions that record the fact that when the Great Pyramid did have its casing stones on it, that a water mark was visible halfway up the structure, indicating that it antedated the agreed-upon date among alternative researchers for the flood, ca. 10,000 BC;
2) The second, younger, but still pre-Egyptian level, lying somewhere between 10,000 BC and the Fourth Dynasty millennia later, represented by the Second Pyramid, the Sphinx, the various Sphinx temples, and possibly the third large Pyramid, Menkaure; and,
3) The final, youngest, and purely Egyptian level, represented by the remainder of the structures at Giza, the causeways and the six smaller pyramids and also possibly by the third large Pyramid, Menkaure.18
But now the problem of dating grows more acute, for if one dates the first and second levels of Giza to antedate Egypt itself, the problem becomes one of fixing Giza within the wider context of the rest of the Grid, and especially in terms of the context and implied technologies evident at such sites as Puma Punkhu, for one and the same technological skill is implied at both sites, and in both chronological levels of construction.
A closer look at Alford’s logic is in order, for now it obtains truly global proportions. Let us recall his words, and then unpack the logic contained in them, to see how it applies to the question of the world Grid:
Indeed, when we add to these relationships the common use of megalithic-style masonry in the temples of both (sic) Sphinx and pyramids, it is easy to see why Egyptologists view all the structures of Giza as intimately linked, and thus roughly contemporary. The important implication of this is that one reliable dating has the potential to date all structures on the Giza plateau, hence the redating of the Sphinx is not an isolated issue, but has fundamental implications for our understanding of Egyptian history, and particularly the so-called ‘Pyramid Age.’19
Unpacking the logic reveals the implications:
1) Egyptology views the structures of Giza as being intimately related and “roughly contemporary,” i.e., as stemming from Egyptian culture, because of the geometrical design of the site and “the common use of megalithic-style masonry” evident in the Sphinx, the Valley Temples, and the three large pyramids;
2) But redating the Sphinx threw all those structures back into a period prior to Egypt, and into what Alford calls a Pyramid Age.
In short, to say, as does Alford, that the Sphinx and Valley temples at Giza represent megalithic constructions is to raise the question of their relationship to other such structures around the world, for those too are worked out according to a grand plan with respect to Giza itself; they were executed over a prolonged time, and they thus exhibit the same three declining levels of constructional expertise. It is to highlight the even greater antiquity of the Great Pyramid, upon whose apex the rest of the Grid was laid out, using it for a prime meridian!
We thus tentatively advance the following expansion of Alford’s thesis, realizing the enormous difficulties that it represents. We do so, however, on the basis that the levels of constructional expertise and precision should be the primary determinants of assigning a site and its construction to one of the three periods or “levels”:
1) The oldest level, comprising the structures that reveal extreme precision of dressing and fitting stones, and a technology to do so, not obtainable today, or exhibiting precision alignments not obtainable today. This level would thus include sites such as Titicaca and Pumu Punkhu in Bolivia, and the Great Pyramid, both antedating 10,000 BC, since:
a) The re-dated Sphinx belongs to the second “less perfect” level of construction evident at Giza;
b) since the Sphinx had been re-dated by Dr. Robert Schoch, based on its water erosion, to ca 5000-7000 BC;
c) since there are ancient traditions that record the fact that when the Great Pyramid did have its casing stones on it, that a water mark was visible halfway up the structure, indicating that it antedated the agreed-upon date among alternative researchers for the flood, ca. 10,000 BC;
d) Native traditions in South America place the dating of Pumu Punkhu to a period that also antedates the flood, as was seen in previous chapters;
e) It should be noted also that one might be looking at yet a fourth level, represented by structures such as the great henges of Europe and Britain, and sites such as Nabta Playa. One is in the presence of a dilemma here, which we mention, but, at this juncture, do not speculate upon, namely, that of the relationship of these sites to those of the Great Pyramid and Puma Punkhu: which is older? the high-tech productions of Puma Punkhu and the Great Pyramid, or the megalithic constructions of Europe and Nabta Playa?20
2) The second, younger, but still pre-Egyptian level, lying somewhere between 10,000 BC and the Fourth Dynasty millennia later. This level is represented by a decline in the quality of construction, but still exhibiting great sophistication and precision, and would represented by the Second Pyramid, the Sphinx, the various Sphinx temples, and possibly the third large Pyramid, Menkaure, in Giza, and possibly by Teotihuacan and similar sites elsewhere, since Native American Indian tradition ascribes that site to the construction of “the gods,” and it exhibits correspondingly similar sophistication; and,
3) The final, youngest, level, represented by the remainder of the structures at Giza, the causeways and the six smaller pyramids and also possibly by the third large Pyramid, Menkaure, and also represented by constructions such as Tikal, Chichen Itza, Anghkor Wat, and the various temples in India.21
The positioning of all three levels with respect to a “Giza Prime Meridian” suggests that there was a continuity of ideology among those building the various structures around the world, and that suggests the presence and continuity of a hidden elite.
There is further testimony of the presence of an elite at Giza, an elite of great antiquity, and this comes, once again, from the astronomical work of Dr. Thomas G. Brophy.
Led by the data of Nabta Playa to consider a similar approach to Giza, Brophy minced no words as to the antiquity, if not of all the structures at Giza, then at least of the design by which they were laid out, which, like Nabta Playa, were aligned to the Galactic Center:
• The monuments function as ground and sky maps to signify the time and location in the sky of the culmination of the Galactic Center.
• The monuments function as a clock to mark the passage of the Zodiac Age of Leo, and to calibrate the start of the precession cycle to the culmination in the sky of the Galactic Center.22
T
hese considerations led to the all-important question:
When were the monuments designed? The data evidences that the Giza plateau monuments design plan was either created more than 12,900 years ago and developed over a several thousand year period; or it was created by a people a people with astronomical calculation and conceptual design abilities rivaling our own, at some time before or contemporary with the large construction events at Giza around 2,400 BC.23
As is now evident, the perfection and technological skills in evidence at the plateau’s first two levels of construction, the redating of the Sphinx, and the presence within the Great Pyramid itself of such overwhelming analogies to modern scientific knowledge point strongly to the first idea, that the site was designed and laid out in high antiquity, by a society or an elite whose scientific and technological knowledge rivaled our own.