The last part contains a condensation of J. Davidowits' solution to the method of the pyramid's construction, which is most certainly the correct one.
Whether the Great pyramid of Cheops in Egypt was meant to be a supulchral monument or not, the fact remains and must be taken into account, when seeking an explanation for the form this structure takes, that no such monumental building in that land was designed or executed without some purpose relative to the transmigration of the soul into another body after death; somewhere along the line, after due glorification of the Pharaoh.
Here I am not going to replicate the extensive discoveries made in the studies of this pyramid by students of mathematics and geography, which have been so thoroughly covered in Peter Tomkins’ book on the subject, The Secrets of the Great Pyramid, published by Harper and Row, NY, 1978.
Instead I am going to explore why it is that this structure in significant ways does not resemble the usual tomb of the Egyptian monarch or aristocrat, in spite of the fact that it has been explained away by orthodox Egyptology as such. It does not have the usual funerary inscriptions on the walls of the “burial chamber” (if the room called “The King’s Chamber” was intended as such); the “sarcophagus” in this room is a rectilinear box of stone, and does not have the shape usually used for a sarcophagus, the outline of the human body; there is no lid for this box of any kind, and certainly not of the usual sort, with a portrait of the deceased and more funerary inscriptions. There never was such a lid, for it could not have been removed by thieves, even if all of the hypothetical funerary apparatus, such as found in the only undisturbed tomb so far discovered, that of King Tut, had been stolen by the time the “tomb” was entered in the first millennium after the birth of Christ by a Muhammadan ruler of the day. It could not have been removed, because the door into the room was blocked by a kind of portcullis, made of stone by the builders.
So far I may be remarking upon the obvious, but no author that I have noticed has come out and said it as I said it above, either coming out of the tradition of orthodox European Egyptology, or out of the various shades of revealed truth that emerge in occult writings upon the subject. Our job, then, is to recover the relationship of this structure to the transmigration of the soul after death, and, having done this much, we will then understand better why the pyramid was built. To sum up: Beyond the obvious and not-so-obvious mathematical relationships and earth-related data that have been discovered to have been incorporated into the proportions of this pyramid, and these have been minutely examined and theses have been brusquely refuted and passionately defended along the way, constituting oceans of ink laid upon the page, your author presents the missing key to the understanding of the intent of this monument’s builders and designers; its ultimate raison d’être.
Given the certainty that the human “soul,” that which animates the flesh (also known among Tibetan Buddhist thinkers as “the thought body of propensities”) continues when released from its co-mingling with this flesh, and is able to pass through the densest of substances in a micro-second, the act of plugging up the ascending passageway, so that no earthly being could inhabit the so-called “King’s Chamber,” (or “Queen’s Chamber,” also, for that matter) completes the purpose of the structure; it was built as a kind of resting place for the journeying soul. In lieu of the funeral decor and customary sarcophagus, the absence of which I noted above, we are presented in the “King’s Chamber” with a rectangular coffer and a room, both, that in their dimensions incorporate and harmonise a series of stark mathematical ratios, to wit: Pi, and Phi, the Golden Section.
I am well aware that orthodox art history does not admit of the knowledge of the construction of the Golden Section by any culture prior to that of the golden age of classical Greek learning, locale of the geometry of Euclid, the art of Phidias and the architecture of the Parthenon. This opinion is flatly wrong, as the independent researcher R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz has so amply demonstrated in his work, published in English under the title: The Temple in Man, published by Inner Traditions International, NY, 1977. The full impact of this man’s discoveries has yet to penetrate the mildewed caverns of orthodox Egyptology to this day, as far as I can determine; but I hope I am wrong.Further, in a treatise soon to be entered in this website, I will reveal that one of the oldest artifacts from dynastic Egypt, the Palette of Narmer, is the locus of a decor whose layout and spacing is saturated with this Phi ratio.
Schwaller de Lubicz demonstrates that the simple construction of the line-segment that has the ratio of the Golden Section to another line segment was extensively used for millennia in Egyptian art, both for the laying out of their architecture and for the canon of proportions used in figurative bas-relief sculpture. The uniform conformity of these pictures to this proportion cannot be written off as coincidence by academia.
Tompkins’ book, which I cited earlier, contains the full story of the Phi and Pi ratio, as these are manifested in the proportions of both the coffer, the room it is in, and in the entire structure. There is no more to add to that. The connection of these ratios with the predicament of the departed soul in its wanderings is not going to be discovered by pondering and sifting the texts that go into the (Egyptian) Book of the Dead, I would expect, without going to the effort of making the search myself, for, as is characteristic of these writings, there are certain matters that remain unspoken of in an explicit manner.
But somewhere there is illustrated (but I am unable at this time to remember where; it must have been in Tompkins’ book) a picture from another of Schwaller de Lubicz’ books, and essentially this shows by a triangle of certain proportions that the Egyptians had discovered a connection between Pi and Phi. The interpretation is thus: Phi squared times 6/5ths=Pi. The numerical answer is 3.1415088+, accurate to within one part in ten-thousand, approximately, when compared with the currently accepted answer for the Pi ratio, 3.14159+ This is much better than the 22/7 ratio that we are told was the best the Egyptians could do, while we were in school.
However, I found in my researches a depiction from a funerary papyrus showing the departed meeting with the terrors of the “underworld,” a domain which he or she must traverse before resurrection with Osiris at the next day’s dawning. Here the deceased is plainly sliding down an incline the inclination of which is easily recognised as the so-called "Phi" angle.
So the connection of the Phi ratio, the Pi ratio and the journey of the deceased is corroborated by a funerary text in this way. There is more than one instance of this Phi-ratio incline with the mummy sliding down it that I found when I was looking all this up in the mid-1990s.
I would like to point out that this journey of the deceased through the terrors of the nighttime underworld parallels the description of the Bardo by Tibetan Buddhist researchers. And that the figure of Osiris duplicates the luminosity and wisdom nature of the Creator also cited by these researchers, personified.
Schwaller de Lubicz is a little hard to follow in some of his more abstruse conclusions, but the essence of his thesis in this book is that the Egyptians considered the Phi ratio to be the underlying principle of generation in the universe. And so it is, from the seashell to the outermost galaxy (if they had known of this). The so-called Fibonacci series approaches Phi as a limit, if each member of the series is divided into the next one along the line. This series, which is obtained by adding each new term to the one before it (i.e.: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13...) governs growth in the animate world, from the branches on a stem to the placing of the umbilicus in mankind, as Phidias recognised.
The proliferation of theories about the purpose and method of construction of the Pyramid testify to the generative power of this ratio!
Leaving all this aside, what I am driving at is that a contemplation of the ratio. AB/BC = BC/AB+BC.is not going to do much for the thought body of propensities that dwells within; a rest in a coffer made of stone fashioned to these proportions, buried in a huge stone structure, also made to this proportion might do wonders for the crapshoot of getting out of the fix the soul is in, when the body quits on it. I am going to try it out when the time comes.
Whether the experience will save the deceased from another round of existence in this vale of tears I leave to wiser heads than mine to figure out. The Egyptians probably were convinced that it would. They put enough work into the project.
Einstein and Max Planck used to trade “thought experiments” via post cards. This was in the days before telephones were common. What would it be like if the speed of light were ten miles per hour and so forth.
How about this one: In the wee hours of the night, think your way into the pyramid as per the attached illustrations. Fit the shape around your brain, for the illustrations were figured so that the pyramid was in proportion to the average capacity of the human cranium. Let me know if the Queen’s Chamber tickles when it sits on the pons Varolii. Check out the sensation at your decussatio pyramidium while you are at it!
But if you make it over to Egypt in this teleportation, remember that they are on a different time than we are, and get out of there before the tourists show up.
While I am on the subject, I would like to recommend the studies of a certain Mr. Davidowits. He has beyond the slightest doubt hit upon the method of building of the pyramids, and he has collected a mountain of evidence that is irrefutable in my opinion, because of its scope and because, where others give us speculation, he gives physical evidence to back his theories up. The stones of the pyramids were cast in place!
Mr. Davidowits is a specialist in “geo-polymerisation,” or the way in which certain minerals form chains that will bind a mass together. Portland cement is an example. He has shown that chrysocolla, a turquoise-like blue mineral found in deserts, does the trick. He has found the quarry where this was extracted, with a bas-relief of the King Cheops or some other pyramid-builder, on its walls, somewhere in Arabia. He has found that the heights of the stones in successive courses varies (as is well known) so as to maintain a constant angle in the face of the pyramid, but that the lengths conform to exactly ten standard distances, which he interprets as meaning that wooden molds were made five in number that were turned endwise to tie the courses of masonry, thus giving ten distances in all. This was accomplished by analysing a photograph made of another pyramid of the era that was better preserved than the pyramid of Cheops, since the outer masonry had only been removed in the 19th century.
He has re-interpreted various texts both in Latin and heiroglyphics to explain puzzling passages that previous scholars could not understand because they did not understand the process. He has shown that the abrupt decline of giant pyramid building coincided with exhaustion of ample supplies of this geopolymeric mineral. He has shown that the “limestone” of the pyramid is significantly lighter than the natural limestone of the area, and attributes this disparity to the air that is commonly entrapped in concretes. He has found characteristic lines where course stones in the aggregate separate from the fine when the “pour” is interrupted and later resumed. These are on the especially large stones. He has shown that the stone that is produced is virtually indistinguishable from natural stones. He has shown that the hardest stone they “used” was before they had learned the manufacture of bronze tools, after which they went to soft pink granite and sandstone. How did they cut this hard limestone and even harder diorite-like stone used in statues, without metal tools? They didn’t; they cast them. They went to the softer stone when the geopolymer ran out.
He has solved the problem of how they raised so many stones in such a short time. Two and a half million in thirty years. This works out to one stone every three minutes, approximately, ten hours a day, 365 days a year without stopping. These two and a half ton blocks were dressed to perfection, hauled up an incline up to over four hundred feet in the air, set in place, not nicked in the case of the outer blocks, with no knowledge of the pulley or hard metal? One every three minutes? Each face finished to within .01 inch of flat? Davidowits’ explanation holds water better than any other. They simply raised bags of the dry mixture up the steps of the pyramid and water, and mixed them together at the location of the mold then in use.
This in itself is convincing enough, since an hypothesis that has gangs of workmen dragging two and a half ton blocks up a ramp that in itself has the volume of yet another pyramid (one every three minutes, day in and day out without let up for thirty years) is in itself preposterous. And this ramp would have had to be disposed of, and the remains have never been found. And the chipping waste from forming two and a half million blocks has never been found, either. And Mr. Davidowits has shown that there is a fundamental difference between the natural nummulitic limestone, and that of the pyramid---the former is stratified and has little shells (nummulites) strewn in it in layers, whereas the pyramid limestone has these shells in swirls that are unstratified.
This can go on and on. Read his book and look up his website.
J. Davidowits' website link. Look it up and be amazed!Illustrations to come:1-10-2005, wb.
Contact W. Bentley, P.O. Box 575, Occidental CA 95465, or at firstname.lastname@example.org[.]
Back to Homepage.
Back to top of this document.