Serpent in the Sky
The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt
by John Anthony West
(266pages, pb, $18.00)
Theosophical Publishing House, 1993
ISBN 0-8356-0691-0
The best introduction to the advanced civilization of ancient Egypt. West
helps the reader have a true glimpse into the Egyptian consciousness by
showing the symbolic triple-level workings of heiroglyphics. His Sphinx
Update proves (with the backing of geologists) that the Sphinx must have
been constructed before 10,000 BC. He also gives a good introduction to
Pythagorean number philosophy. This book is not to be missed.
Chapter Titles
Pythagoras Rides Again
Serpent in the Sky
Science and Art in Ancient Egypt
Myth, Symbolism, Language, Literature
The Temple of Man
Egypt: Heir to Atlantis
Appendix I: The Gauri/Lehner Survey
Appendix II: The Sphinx Update
Selected quotes:
pp. 1,2,5
Serpent in the Sky presents a revolutionary, exhaustively documented re-interpretation
of the civilization of ancient Egypt; it is a study of the life work of
the philosopher, Orientalist and mathematician, the late R. A. Schwaller
de Lubicz.
After two decades of study, mainly on site at the Temple of Luxor, Schwaller
de Lubicz was able to prove that all that is accepted as dogma concerning
Egypt (and ancient civilization in general) is wrong, or hopelessly inadequate;
his work overthrows or undermines virtually every currently-cherished belief
regarding man's history, and the 'evolution' of civilization.
Egyptian science, medicine, mathematics and astronomy were all of an exponentially
higher order of refinement and sophistication than modern scholars will
acknowledge. The whole of Egyptian civilization was based upon a complete
and precise understanding of universal laws. And this profound understanding
manifested itself in a consistent, coherent and inter-related system that
fused science, art and religion into a single organic Unity. In other words,
it was exactly the opposite of what we find in the world today.
Moreover, every aspect of Egyptian knowledge seems to have been complete
at the very beginning. The sciences, artistic and architectural techniques
and the hieroglyphic system show virtually no signs of a period of 'development';
indeed, many of the achievements of the earliest dynasties were never surpassed,
or even equalled later on. This astonishing fact is readily admitted by
orthodox Egyptologists, but the magnitude of the mystery it poses is skillfully
understated, while its many implications go unmentioned.
How does a complex civilization spring full-blown into being? Look at a
1905 automobile and compare it to a modern one. There is no mistaking the
process of 'development'. But in Egypt there are no parallels. Everything
is there right at the start.
The answer to the mystery is of course obvious, but because it is repellent
to the prevailing cast of modern thinking, it is seldom seriously considered.
Egyptian civilisation was not a 'development', it was a legacy.
Following an observation made by Schwaller de Lubicz, it is now possible
virtually to prove the existence of another, and perhaps greater civilization
ante-dating dynastic Egypt - and all other known civilizations - by millennia.
In other words, it is now possible to prove 'Atlantis', and simultaneously,
the historical reality of the Biblical Flood. (I use inverted commas around
'Atlantis' since it is not the physical location that is at issue here,
but rather the existence of a civilization sufficiently sophisticated and
sufficiently ancient to give rise to the legend.)
Proof of the existence of 'Atlantis' rests upon a simple geological foundation.
Questions of chronology and cause remain unanswered. And it is still impossible
to say how the wisdom of 'Atlantis' was preserved and handed down, or by
whom. But its existence is now as difficult to deny as the completeness
and coherence of Egyptian knowledge at its inception.
Therefore, it is probably safe to say that in providing this first true
picture of ancient Egypt, Schwaller de Lubicz has also provided the key
to the study of the wisdom of the earlier 'Atlantis'.
pp. 5, 6,7, 9
My aim is to call attention to Schwaller de Lubicz's vast and neglected
work; to arouse sufficient interest in it to inspire its publication in
English and its dissemination among those capable of recognising its real
significance and of devoting the time and effort necessary to study it in
its original form.
To appreciate this radical work, it is essential to understand both the
manner in which orthodox Egyptology has been developed and the reasons for
its continued prevalence.
Egyptology, along with all modern disciplines devoted to past or alien cultures
(anthropology, archaeology, ethnology, etc.), is based upon certain assumptions
considered so self-evident they are never stated explicitly, never questioned.
Generally speaking, 'authorities' within these fields are unaware that their
disciplines are based upon these assumptions.
1 That man has 'progressed'. There has been an 'evolution' in human affairs.
2 That civilisation implies progress and that the height of civilisation
is in direct proportion to the rate of progress.
3 That progress, hence civilisation, began with the Greeks, who invented
speculative philosophy and rational science.
4 That science and science-based disciplines are the only valid instruments
for arriving at 'objective truth'.
5 That without rational science and speculative philosophy there is no real
civilisation.
6 That there is nothing the ancients knew that we do not know, or understand
better.
These assumptions (the selected quotes typify the attitude) have been accepted
by almost every scientist and scholar for the last two hundred years. They
percolate into every aspect of education. No reader of this book will have
been taught otherwise at school or university. Yet each of these assumptions
is false, or represents a half-truth more insidious than outright falsehood.
To demonstrate this according to prevailing academic ground rules is simple
enough but time consuming, and would take us too far from Egypt. The reader
interested in pursuing the subject is referred to the Bibliography.
For my purposes, analogy will suffice: the chef makes the restaurant, not
the dishwashers. The executive makes the corporation, not the shipping clerks.
If the chef is drunk, and the managing director berserk, both restaurant
and corporation soon founder.
Modem society is what it is, not because the masses are uneducated, but
precisely because of the understanding, beliefs and., goals of our leaders
- not politicians, but scientists, educators, and intellectuals - all of
whom are highly educated. Society is shaped by those who control its head
and heart. Real physical needs are easily satisfied. It is our desires and
beliefs that make the world what it is.
Darwin wields a greater influence than Stalin.
The world is what it is because of progress, not in spite of it. Progress
is neither a corollary of civilisation nor vice versa.
'Civilisation', like 'love' or 'freedom', is a word that means something
different to everyone.
By 'civilisation' I mean a society organised upon the conviction that mankind
is on earth for a purpose. In a civilisation men are concerned with the
quality of the inner life rather than with the conditions of day-to-day
existence. Though there is no commanding logical or rational reason why
'concern with quality' should depend upon 'sense of purpose', human nature
is such that without the sense of purpose, it is in practice impossible
to maintain that essential unwavering concern - a concern which involves
the personal determination to master greed, ambition, envy, jealousy, avarice
and so on, all, those aspects of ourselves that make the world what it is.
History is there to bear grim witness: even with the sense of purpose man
usually fails; without it there is no compelling reason why he should even
try. In a true civilisation, men try and succeed.
'Progress' is a parody of civilisation, understood in this sense. Knowledge
is a parody of understanding. Information is a parody of knowledge. We live
in an age of information, and if we swallow whole the bait of modern education,
the thought, art and literature of civilised men is, to us, incomprehensible.
Egypt was a civilisation, and the academic Egyptologist stands helpless
in the face of its accomplishment.
It is for this reason that, in all our schools, we are presented with an
obvious paradox. We are taught that the ancient Egyptians were a people
capable of producing artistic and architectural masterpieces unequalled
in recorded history, yet that at the same time they were priest-bound necrophiles,
an intellectually infantile race obsessed with purely materialistic concerns
for a mythical hereafter; a people slavishly worshipping a grotesque pantheon
of animal-headed gods; a people devoid of real mathematics, science, astronomy
or medicine, and devoid of any desire to acquire such knowledge; a people
so conservative, so opposed to change, that their artistic, political, social
and religious institutions remained rigid for four millennia.
But if this picture of priest-bound necrophiles is correct - if there is
nothing to be learned from Egypt that we do not already know - why bother
with them?
Muhammad Ali spends no afternoons in the local gym watching tankers slug
it out. Escoffier never hung about a hamburger joint ferreting out secret
recipes. Dostoyevsky did not waste his time sifting through the maunderings
of amateurs, yet the Egyptologist cheerfully devotes a lifetime to working
out the details of Tutankhamen's laundry list.
It did not start out this way. Actually, what we are witnessing, not only
in Egyptology, but in other fields as well, is the senescence and demise
of an academic approach based upon faulty premises but at the same time
responsible for the development of powerful, if limited, investigative methods.
As this approach expends itself in discussions over how many asps killed
Cleopatra, a new generation of scholars, free from the prejudices but armed
with the methods, begins the process of revitalisation. Schwaller de Lubicz
may be regarded as one of the great links between old and new, making meticulous
use of the methods and data of his predecessors in order to present a synthesis
so new, daring and comprehensive that the youngest of the new school have
not yet caught up to him.
