Hi Tamahu,
I have gone through alot of what you have posted, but there does not appear to be any rational relationship between the Ankh and the Anchor as an
archetypical design. There must be something far more rational and available than trying to mystify all of this into some Hebrew connotation.
Why do "Western mystics" always try to put everything in perspective to a Hebrew construct? At the base of it, even from a philosophical and an
historical basis, the attempt to do such really does not make any sense.
Manley P. Hall states,
Sun worship played an important part in nearly all the early pagan Mysteries. This indicates the probability of their Atlantean origin, for the
people of Atlantis were sun worshipers. The Solar Deity was usually personified as a beautiful youth, with long golden hair to symbolize the rays of
the sun. This golden Sun God was slain by wicked ruffians, who personified the evil principle of the universe.
Source
Without a doubt, it could be argued that no religious system has sought to destroy the knowledge and philosophical system associated with "the Sun"
more than have the Judaic tribes and their offshoots. Since this holds true, the very philosophical foundations you appear to find a great value in
must itself be rooted and its fount in the very "ruffians" who clearly seek to sley the "the Golden Sun God".
The Ankh and the Anchor stand to have a far more rational basis as being symbols that reveal aspects of this Ancient "Sun God" than they do in such
concepts as "sex" on the lower planes.
Since we know that the Egyptian Mysteries were a target of the Judaic tribes, and the Ankh is an Egyptian symbol, what is the rational basis to try to
morph the Ankh into a Jewish or Judaic interpretation? Is this not a form of absurdity in that we allow an interlocutor to interpret for us what is
plainly visible for all to see?
Clearly the design is geometric, so cannot be Judiac inspired. Would it not make some sense to first study the Heiroglyphs to see if we can find some
clue or information to aid us in our discovery?
Source:
hello-egypt99.tripod.com...
The T, from which the Ankh clearly shows a design parallel, is depicted as "the Letter D" rotated 90 degrees on its axis, while the Letters D and T
are the only two "D"n"T"als (dentals) in the English language set. Furthermore, the "Book of Formation" hints at a phonetic philosophy
predicated on models of hardness and softness:
The two sounds of each letter are the hard and the soft--the aspirated and the softened. They are called Double, because each letter presents a
contrast or permutation Source
We can clearly represent the D and the T as models of "hardness" and "softness", so how do we represent these Letters as "permutations" or
"contrasts"?
If D is the Sunrise, and T is the Noon Zenith, have we not created a permutation or "contrast" or "opposite", in that one is at the lowest order
of appearance and the latter is at the upper most appearance of observation?
Do we then not put this observation back into perspective as "the Sun God" as our reference point and inspiration?
[edit on 6/19/2007 by bairdspeak]
[edit on 6/19/2007 by bairdspeak]
