T H E C O S M I C R I T U A L
Chapter 1 The Cosmic Principle Chapter 2 The Oresteia Chapter 3 The Demi-god Chapter 4 The Way Chapter 5 Mitanni Chapter 6 The Bronze Age Chapter 7 The Cosmic Ritual Chapter 1 The Cosmic Principle For the last one thousand years the Western Classicists have been talking a load of rubbish - they have completely failed to understand the Greek Culture - indeed the inanities and trivialities presented as the religion of Ancient Greece is the greatest single scandal of modern Western scholarship. In effect they have treated the Greeks with contempt - kicked them into the gutter - and then kowtowed before them (which gives the Western position with precision - it is a matter of wonder that the Western mind can hold these opposed ideas at the same time) - can a people with such asinine beliefs produce anything worthwhile? So also the so-called Greek Philosophy is so superficial and trivial 10 that one can only wonder that anyone pays any attention to such trash - and this beside the deep powerful philosophies of contemporary India and China. With an almost complete ignorance of religion - exposed at most to a limited Judaeo- Christian tradition - it was simply an absurd conceit of the Westerners to think that they could understand the high Religion of Ancient Greece - just as they have almost completely failed to understand the living Culture of India - except that there are no Ancient Greeks still around to say they are talking rubbish. About the mid-Nineteen-Sixties a renegade Jew called Allegro - as one of the `experts' on the Dead Sea scrolls - published a book. It caused a storm with a 20 gaggle of `experts' - Assyriologists and such-like from different English universities - writing a collective letter to the London Times denouncing the book. Poor Allegro! - what was his crime? He was doing precisely what these and other `experts' were doing - applying the results of modern anthropological `research' to ancient religions - except that he chose to apply them also to the sacred cows of Judaism and Christianity. Certainly these are ancient religions - but the result was intolerable to these evidently largely Jewish `experts'. Judaism is a backward out-of-date religion - the tradition has been lost and the rabbis just wander - the core - the Temple - has been destroyed and cannot be replaced - and only the peripherals remain - while Christianity is a half-baked 30 (`hypoptos' - Aga 1637) religion - ignorant of its antecedents and unsure of itself - both are confused religions and try to boost themselves by taking the worst possible view - with even wilful misunderstanding and misinterpretation - and denigrating other religions (even today an `educated' Jew can contemptuously write that Hinduism is `close to ... idol worship'). Allegro was talking obvious rubbish - and the Jews and the Christians could easily see this for their own religions - but refused to draw the obvious conclusion - if it failed so badly with their own religions which they could see - then it failed equally badly with other religions - even if they could not see - modern anthropological `research' was rubbish - an almost complete failure. 40 The Western academic approach has been one of complete ignorance - as based on the idea that close examination of each trivial detail will eventually result in Knowledge and Wisdom. This has failed and will fail - it will never reach beyond the complete superficiality of the starting-point - and this is seen even in the so-called modern philosophy - and exemplified above all by the picture of the Greek Religion that has evolved. The Western education even glories in this ignorance - `I only know that I know nothing' - as in itself consisting only of learning an arbitrary collection of `facts' and `ideas' without form or direction - and with some vague `logic' meandering aimlessly through - and with 50 this the Western scholars - as beginning from the `Renaissance' - have built a vast edifice of `knowledge' on a foundation of Darkness and Ignorance - as really just a structure built on sand - a house of cards. This arbitrariness is shamelessly evident in the Western literature - as based on some fatuous idea of `poetic inspiration' - and this is seen even at the highest level - a famous speech - in the play Henry V by the English dramatist Shakespeare - has `imitate the action of a tiger' etc - what can we make of this rag-bag of similes? The mind simply cannot go through the contortions necessary to grasp them in quick succession. Indeed in the film when an English actor 60 called Laurence Olivier reached this piece in one bizarre moment Hotspur became Hamlet - a slow `philosophical' statement was the only way of putting it across. Again this same speech ends with the famous battle-cry - `God for Harry England and St George!' And we can very well ask - what kind of order is this? God King and Country is standard - what then is St George doing at the end of it? - Following the logic he is identified with the Devil! Indeed one asks God for support - or the patron saint - `St George for England' is again standard - what then is the point of asking God to support the patron saint? Has he suddenly collapsed and become a weakling? Clearly Shakespeare allowed the sound to dominate the meaning - shoddy workmanship! Indeed the complete meaninglessness 70 of modern Western Art has been taken to its logical conclusion by an American art critic - `An artist is anyone who cares to call himself an artist - and then a work of art is anything that that self-proclaimed artist cares to call a work of art' - which correctly reduces Art to nonsense - modern Western `education' with all its talk of being creative achieves only complete sterility. All these are just symptoms of an empty Western mind - as expressed primarily in the civilization - what is really at issue is the modern Western civilization itself. The destruction of an entire civilization requires a vast proof - and it is presented here as a deep translation of the Oresteia of Aiskhylos - almost as 80 if the Oresteia has been broken down and reconstituted. The Classicists have just been scratching the surface - as treating Schrodinger's equation as an example of Modern Art - and indeed the bewildering differences of the many many translations - the wild commentaries of the Westerners - as simply a random meaningless jumble of `bright ideas' with no foundation - no structure - with arguments and difficulties on practically every detail (as which weapon did Klytemnestra use for the Murder - the Sword or the Axe?) - as just giving the peasant level - and even that not too well (what the Classicists seem to need is some Elementary Mathematics) - sum up the vast ignorance of the Westerners concerning the Tragedy - as indeed a declaration that the scholastic approach is 90 wrong from the very beginning - in its very principle. The failure of the Classicists arises primarily from their ignorance of Religion and the ancient Principles - `the Principles of Culture' - and of the Symbols and Rituals expressed in every detail - there is nothing else - indeed the grossest error of the Classicists - showing the complete bankruptcy of the Western academic mind - the utter superficiality even to imbecility - is the assertion that the Greeks and indeed the ancients had no Symbolism. It is simply grotesque that when someone in ancient Sumer says `O Bull' it is declared `brute balderdash' (from a book review) - but when a Christian today says `O Lamb' he 100 is expressing the deepest spirituality. Culture is nothing but Symbolism - without Symbolism it is nothing (`Culture' is a derivative of `Cult' - Religion is Culture - Culture is Religion - there is no distinction - Coomaraswamy). The antiquity of Symbolism can be given very simply - what is Language if it isn't Symbolism? And here the Oresteia from the beginning to the end is nothing but one vast Symbolism - indeed the first function of the Artist is the knowledge and correct organization of Symbols - precisely as in the construction of Ritual - and thus the Upanishad declares that the Artist creating a Work of Art should act as the Creator creating the World. 110 To this can be added the completely wrong idea held by the modern West on the development of human Culture - which was indeed organized and nurtured from the very beginning by the Priests as guided always by these same deep powerful Principles which were established in the beginning - Principles which form the basis of the entire Religion and Culture of mankind - asnd including Language. One of the greatest problems is indeed the Western ignorance of the Priestly development - on the basis of these same Principles - of Language - as the expression of Symbol and Ritual - and the Classicists have been faced with the insuperable difficulty of their vagueness on the Greek grammar and vocabulary - which is generally crude and sometimes just wrong - it is absurd giving the 120 same word different meanings in different contexts in the same Play - words should be known with ritual precision - and the precision of the language of the Oresteia is a matter of awe. It is indeed indeed through the so-called Renaissance that arises the modern Western civilization's claims to be based on the Greeks - so far as this claim is correct this Renaissance was based not on the Greek Culture but on the Greek Rubbish - how could they understand anything of the Culture - with complete ignorance of the basis of the Culture - the Greek Religion? The Greek literature was on two levels - the `peasant' level ie the professorial level - and the deep 130 Priestly level as entirely beyond the knowledge of the Western Classicists. The ancient Priests must not be confused with Christian priests - those were so far superior that it is an abuse of language using the same word for the Christians. The ancient Priests - and they were all of the fraternity whether Druid Flamens Hiereus Magi Brahman Cohen or Priest of Memphis - were given a vast education - of mathematical rigour - hard logical precise - far superior to anything the Westerners can even dream of - it was a deep education based on Principle Symbol Ritual - which summed up the entire Culture of the State - the ideal of the Priestly education was expressed in the Nous of Anaxagoras - and this was a whole vast Universe - as the true and high Culture of Man - of which the 140 Westerners know nothing - almost as eg the world of Goethe for Amazon Indians who have had no contact with Europeans. True Knowledge as presented in the Jewish Myth of Adam and Eve is primarily a knowledge of Principles - these Principles then giving a criterion for deciding `good' and `evil' - for selection and organisation - for setting the beginning - and also the end - for giving the depth and also the vastness of the Cosmic Scheme. This deep powerful Knowledge is as another and higher dimension of the human mind - the Divine Mind. This Divine Mind - as embodied in the ancient Priests is now found here in this secret translation (Aga 39) of the Oresteia 150 ie at the deep Priestly level. The Oresteia is a vehicle of the high Religion and Culture of Antiquity - as the embodiment of Principle Symbol Ritual - a rigorous and powerful expression of the ancient principles - where everything is organized in accordance with objective rules - giving indeed the intellectualism that is missing today - for a completely new concept of Art (as Skt Arta - and English Rite) - with rules and organization - order and perfection - beyond imagination - beyond belief - overwhelming the mind - that one can only bow low with awe. It indeed shows a Mind so vast that before it the Einsteins and and Newtons of the West are less than pygmies. And here is now presented the Knowledge that was Adam's and more than Adam's - the Mind of God. 160 The advantage of the Oresteia - the supreme Tragedy for the Athenians - it is no accident that this is the only Trilogy to have survived - is that as a Work of Art it is both vast and complete - and so a translation can present in detail the complete organization - the deep powerful principles - the high beauty - the vast symmetries and harmonies - for a concept of Art far beyond anything even dreamt of by the West - as indeed a supreme expression of the Divine Mind. However thus too the translation will be almost incomprehensible and unreadable - the primitive and superficial English language cannot handle the deep powerful concepts of ancient Greek (and Indian) Religion and Ritual - special meanings 170 must be given to many English words - and the professors can only gape - but a Classicist following the translation through will get a deeper understanding of the meaning and construction of the Greek - and indeed a glimpse of a new Universe. However the full demonstration requires an (academic) production of the Play - and then the Western world will know for the first time since the Dark Ages the true meaning of a Work of Art. The Classicists in complete ignorance of the organizing rules and of the staging of the Play speak of the `almost desperate obscurity' (Loeb) of the words (and then in their conceit these poor benighted professors claim to fully understand 180 the dark utterances of Kasandra - and treat with contempt an ignorant Chorus who in fact have a far deeper understanding). A major advantage of so many rules is that for every detail - word or action - there is a fix from several directions - as giving a new ritual precision at least in the Aiskhylian context (several words need to be redefined) - thus the Symbols can be understood and the Rituals forming every detail can be calculated - and underlying the presentation - set in the background - is the standard ritual system - the Temple - the words are indeed organized like architecture - with every word as a brick in the Temple - and all the spatial relationships are based on this scheme. Even when the Temple has been Destroyed - and only chaos and confusion prevailing - the Poet will 190 choose the words and actions with ambiguity - to be interpreted both as ritually correct and as expressing the confusion. The Symbols in turn are the Symbols of the Society as presented in the Religions and Rituals of the different castes - and the organization is based on knowledge of the different Religions - so that every Actor on the Stage is presented with his correct Symbols declaring the representative as High Priest - the Poets do not recognize individuals but only ritual Symbols - as knights in armour are recognized through the device on their Shield - thus in turn the Actor expresses correctly the Principles and Rituals of his Religion. 200 Yet always the basis of the organization of the Symbols as of the Rituals will be the ancient Principles - it is through these Principles that every picture will be carefully drawn - the elements as Symbols presenting a coherent whole within the different Rituals and at once at the Artistic level within the Trilogy and it is simple ignorance of these Principles that has led to the confusion of modern Western Art (as in Shakespeare's Henry V) - and the entire Oresteia is indeed presented as a Cosmic Ritual - with Principle piled on Principle - Symbol on Symbol - Ritual on Ritual - as a staggering achievement of the Poetic Art. And there is of course a fundamental Principle - the Cosmic Principle. This is not an act of Faith (like the Christian Holy Ghost) but an 210 actual Principle known and used explicitly as the organizing Principle of all Religion and Culture. It is so vast that with it the modern Western civilization is Destroyed - the foundations have been smashed. It is indeed the objective criterion for distinguishing barbarism from Culture and ignorance of this criterion is a simple declaration of barbarism - as a correct description of the modern Western `civilization - Barbarism masquerading as Culture. The Cosmic Principle as expressed in the Oresteia is indeed so vast that it defines the order of the plays - the order of the scenes - the order of the speeches - the order of the sentences in a speech - and even the order of the 220 words in the line (this also shows that all the major emendations are wrong - the original is in general quite correct). It is so powerful that it gives a complete relationship between the actions on the stage and the words spoken - there can be no variation of the staging - and clearly Aiskhylos organized the action in detail before writing a single word - but thus too one can calculate backwards for the entire staging - as used in this translation. It is again so deep that one can see an actual Seed developing organically into a Tree - as distinct from the disorganized arbitrary monstrosities presented by the Western Classicists and writers - before Aiskhylos all the Western Shakespeares Racines Goethes can just hide. Indeed even with the Priestly background it is a wonder 230 how Aiskhylos managed to pack so much into his words. Naturally something had to give - and these were the things with the lowest priority - to which the Classicists give the highest priority - the metre and the peasant meaning. It can safely be said that the Westerners have missed the point of every single line in the Play from the first to the last - indeed of every word - and every word has point - underneath it is in fact a completely different Play. The Principle can be given and also the dramatic rules of the Play - but to properly understand and use them requires a working knowledge of the major religions at the deepest levels - the Religion of Aiskhylos was indeed higher 240 than any religion in the world today as the Demi-god was spiritually supreme - and also of the origin and development of human Culture (including Language) - and again of the history of the Bronze Age - indeed the Oresteia can be taken as a microcosm summing up the entire Religion and Culture of mankind - as almost a complete Education in itself. And of course all these disparate elements are related as expressions of the Cosmic Principle. Simply if one knows the Cosmic Principle everything can be known - the entire knowledge of the ancient Priests is open - if one does not know it then nothing is known - only ignorance remains (Aga 39). But for the Westerners achieving this knowledge requires years of training - as practically a complete reeducation at a deeper level - for two 250 thousand years the Western mind has deteriorated - first with Christianity as destroying the spirit - then the spurious `Renaissance-Enlightenment' substituting a trivialising superficial meaningless `Reason' - the modern Western academic mind should be treated with contempt - it will be generations before the Western intellectuals can recover the Mind. Chapter 2 The Oresteia The primary requirement for understanding the Ancient Principles is a knowledge of the Religions of India at the deepest levels and of the informing principles 260 - together with some study of Sanskrit and the ancient religious literature as giving an insight into the ancient Priestly mind - of deep Knowledge - high intelligence - vast responsibility - a Mind that expressed itself through Principle Symbol and Ritual - and if anything appears meaningless or absurd - it only declares the ignorance of the professors and not the silliness of the ancients. Here the principles and the deep organization of Ritual and Art can be presented with the staging and meaning of the Oresteia. First an important major problem - disregarded by the savants - is what was the mountain called Aigiplanktos by Aiskhylos? The savants (see Fraenkl) are 270 `unanimous' - Mt Geraneion. They have just looked at the map and taken the obvious route - and and even though as Fraenkl admits it simply does not fit the context - nor does he give any reason why Aiskhylos should give it this particular name - nor indeed why for this mountain alone he should use an epithet at all - and Fraenkl also overlooks the fact that a line from Geraneion to Arakhnaion goes close to Mycenae and Argos - it is shoddy workmanship having the light almost doubling back on itself. If an epithet is chosen the original should be obvious to the audience - aswhich could include peasants - and so one should look for a mountain nearer home - and the answer comes at once - Aigialeus - which can be given practically the same meaning and appears to have 280 been actually visible from the theatre. Indeed it can be taken for granted that it would have been emphasized for the audience by the setting there of an actual beacon - as seen by the Guard at the beginning (the synchronization is easily arranged) - this identification satisfies all the requirements of the context - as specifically the vast expanse of water necessary (`even over') - the Foreland will then be on Salamis - and Aiskhylos does not refer to the Saronic Gulf (as Fraenkl) but to the Saronic Straits (Aga 307). However the basic problem of the professors is in the meanings of words - a superficial example of the difference - 290 A Greek PhD student of Classics came to me and asked `What is the meaning of this word? - my Professor says it means a Will but I disagree with him.' It was in Plutarch's Life of Cato the Elder (who was little more than a Name to me) - a famous passage that the third greatest regret in his life was that for one day he was `adiathetos' - as generally translated - `without making his Will'. The idea was absurd - in ancient times inheritance was handled by the family - the making of a Will was extraordinary. I first checked that as would be expected from a Priest of Delphi the principles were being followed correctly. I then considered it for a couple of minutes and asked two questions - Was Cato a rich 300 man? He was a Senator - General - head of a gens - yes we could assume he had vast estates. Was he a Stoic? Yes he was a Stoic. There you are - that gives the fundamental contradiction of his life - how could he reconcile his vast wealth with Stoic austerity? The estates belonged to the family and only the produce was his - and this too on perhaps two high ritual days of the year when formally tendered to him. Evidently he solved the problem by giving it away at once - keeping only enough to uphold his position within his Stoic principles - so that he was at once a rich man and a poor man. However it seems that once for some reason he waited a day before giving it away - the Classicists will take this as irrelevant - but it involved a violation of his deepest principles - for one day 310 he was a rich man and a rich man. The general translation is simply bizarre - a curiosity - while this translation shows a rigid adherence to principle as quite apart from practical consequences (`pragmatism') - a Priest would not waste his time writing meaningless anecdotes - and Plutarch is really writing a Lives of the Saints - for instruction and example. PhD - `It is a good interpretation but there is no evidence' - `If they get this wrong they can get all sorts of things wrong - what else does it say about Cato?' - `It says that he was a mean man'. `There you are - for Mean read Austere - it is a matter of interpretation - and it will be right.' (PhD later - `I tried to tell my Professor but he refused to listen' - so much for the Western academic `thirst for knowledge'.) 320 The almost complete professorial disregard of ritual is seen to the point of absurdity - leading to corruption of the translation - in the word phaios (Kh 1049). The Greek word is clearly related to the English `Bay' - and this was the required meaning. However the Lexicon gave the meaning `grey'! When I first came to it I was astonished - no other meaning was acceptable - it had to be a flame- colour like Bay. I looked again and saw the relevant reference was to Plato. I checked - and he was clear - mixing blue and white gives this colour! My first reaction was Plato was talking rubbish - but I decided to give him a chance and read the whole passage through. It was a series of these equations - the mixture 330 of A and B gives C - until at the very end he wrote - these are the works of God - do not try to emulate them with your human hands! These are relationships of ritual - not to be found in the laboratory - whatever the meaning - the one meaning it did not have was `grey'! I reviewed my evidence - it was precise - the mixing of Blue and White gave this Bay! No - Plato was correct - the sheer waste of my time came as usual through the blundering blindness of Classics professors - anxious to make Plato a champion of modern liberal democratic humanism - the same blindness as gave rise to the `Renaissance'. Another similar blunder is in Kelainos - used to describe Agamemnon (Aga 115) - and the Erinnyes (Aga 462) - as again an orangey colour as Tawny - appropriate for Gold and Flame 340 - but for some reason the Lexicon translates `black' - one translator (Penguin) deciding this was extremely odd for Agamemnon did indeed translate Tawny (Aga 115) - then got cold feet and reverted to `black' (Aga 463) for the Erinnyes! Ritual is seen even in the grammar - which has been misunderstood by the savants - the Greek habit of usage of adjectives alone with the noun understood is well known - but the professors do not face up to the consequence - when an adjective and a noun are in the same case it does not necessarily mean that the adjective qualifies the noun - indeed in ritual the Name gives a complete description of the object - and rarely is an adjective required - as then generally presenting 350 a change from the standard ritual form - thus regularly the noun and adjective can represent two objects - not as chosen arbitrarily but as both present in the ritual scene. However through the Seed the same words are applied to several different scenes - thus comes the general vagueness of the words and the several coined words for which Aiskhylos is particularly known. The Seed is presented in different ways - as a regular poetic technique which has completely escaped the Classics professors - though popular in Sanskrit poetry - the floating adjective - carefully chosen - set between two nouns to qualify both - as emphasizing the ritual equality. Thus we have `Of Destructive 360 Bride' (Aga 1319) set between two nouns - both `Aryan Lord' - one in the nominative - the other in the genitive - thus the form of this unique coined word is chosen to allow it to be in both cases - qualifying both nouns - and indeed all the Lords (and Ladies too!) have Destructive Brides - everyone on the the stage is Man-Woman and Destructive. Again the word diphui- `two-natured' (Aga 1468) has baffled the professors. They have interpreted it as referring to the pair Agamemnon and Kasandra - with here `two-natured' meaning `a pair where one is Man and one is Woman' - making the word quite pointless - and every word used by Aiskhylos has point. The Lexicon 370 gives the correct meaning `two natures in one eg a Man-Woman - a hermaphrodite - and here the word really means `a pair where one is Man-Woman and the other is Woman-Man' - as a union of opposites - a meeting of extremes. Indeed in the Play not just Aigisthos but all the men behave like women (even Orestes behaves like a weakling throughout - he Slays an unarmed man - and then quails before an armed woman - he needs prodding - and he even identifies himself as Woman - Kh 12 - 21) - and equally all the women behave like men. This is deliberate as declaring that all the actors combine in themselves Woman as identified with the Principle of Peace and Man as presenting the Principle of War. 380 Thus again a similar technique is used with the verbal forms - most clearly in `wins the Victory' (Eum 722) - where the verb is neatly balanced between a `Thou' and an `I'. With the `I' the form is a straightforward future (or aorist subjunctive) active - with the `Thou' it is an elided aorist middle - the forms being ritually correct in that for the Warriors Apollo and Orestes the Victory is active (as Eum 741) and over another - while for the Chorus of Peace the Victory is over themselves and properly middle (as Eum 795). The `Thou' itself is between two verbs - which has misled the professors who have thus taken each verb with one subject - in fact the first verb `Risest' emphasizes the second - as the Rising comes with the Victory. As Athena emphasizes there are no losers - 390 everyone has won the Victory - as thus the ritual equality emphasized in the construction of the Line - and indeed everyone Rises with a role in the new Creation of Dionysos. The puns on the verbal and indeed adjectival forms are regularly intentional. Again the Poet says `Look I am going to show you a wonderful New Marriage' (as Aga 1179) - and then against the standard ritual of the Bride with shy reluctance slowly entering the Chamber and the ardent Groom dashing in after - he shows the Groom as Agamemnon as the Woman slowly reluctantly crawling (literally) first into the Chamber - and the Bride Kasandra at the end of her 400 scene dashing in after - or again two Corpses entwined - as the Pair lying in their Bed-Bath - or an old Hag married to an old Impotent Man - as the Blood-dripping Klytemnestra and Aigisthos - or Incest - the professors have completely failed to understand the perversion at the beginning of the Second Play - Orestes sets the Fiery Hair (Xanthos) for the Funeral-Rite - and along comes Elektra and perverts it into the Marriage-Rite - the scene of the Footsteps has been completely missed - any Hindu could tell them that this presents the central Rite of the Hindu Marriage - the Pair - Man leading - Woman following - go round the Sacred Fire - set low (for Kam) - and here properly represented by the Two locks of Hair - or women in lesbian relationship - the 410 professors are again lost in the ending of the Second Play - the Chorus troop on to the Stage dripping Red (Bay) with Blood - entwining themselves (Kh 1049) as in ecstasy and lust as a Bakkhic Dance (Kh 698) - as in every scene a Strange New Marriage is presented - culminating in the Sacred Marriage of Dionysos and the Goddess as Athena. This Bakkhic Dance on a Peak is indeed ritually related to an act of the Homeric Odysseus - which has however completely escaped the professors - as being so determined to turn their backs on ritual and take the most superficial view of the Greek Culture that they even ignore the obvious and prefer some meaningless 420 translation. Here they translate `Going he stood on the shore' (Od 6.236) - what is the point of the participle which in the Greek follows the verb? The word has another meaning - and the last word again is also a mistranslation hiding the true ritual significance - `He Sits like a Pillar on the Heap from the Sea' - the meaning is now far more vivid - and the ritual basis is clear - the Heap from the Sea is the Barrow - the Mound in the Second Play - as declaring the Resurrection - and the Pillar is then the Support. Supporting what? On the Sea-shore it will be the Sky. Thus Odysseus is presented as the Risen God Upholding the Sky - as the Titan Atlas transformed for the new Rite - as clearly being presented in identification with the Gods of the different Religions and 430 castes in turn - and the Rite has not been understood - the Pillar represents the Foundation - as set in the Depths (for Dharam) - and now with the transformation raised to the Peak (as Kam) - indeed as the Rite of Moses while the Israelites Battled for the Promised Land - as thus ritually Supporting itself! - and Odysseus thus prepares himself to take on his final role subsuming and transcending all the other Religions as the High Kretan Sun-God of War. Again the middle voice as found throughout the Play has simply baffled the professors - they cannot understand the significance as based primarily on Symbol and Ritual. Thus the Chariot is a Symbol of the Temple (as explicitly at 440 Konarak) and so of the Created World - and the Charioteer - the Creator-Sun-God - whether Helios Krishna or Hermes - is Driving the World and all mankind to the Destiny of Death - and thus correctly the active voice is used. What then is the signifance of the middle (Kh 660)? It is wrong to take the Chariot as subject - being inanimate it cannot act - and here as often the subject is understood - the use of the middle simply identifies the subject and with the Goal - the Charioteer is the Lord of Death - as Death Driving for himself - and here the Charioteer is Orestes himself - as taking on the ritual role of the Lord of Destruction and Death - as again in the Third Play he Rises as Sun-God and Creator of the World. 450 It is necessary that the ritual role of the Actor is understood - otherwise the deep meaning and point of words get lost. Thus when Orestes (Kh 664) asks for someone to speak to - Woman or Aryan Lord - Aigisthos is both - the associated adjectives are ritually confused - each given the description appropriate of the other - declaring the Destruction of the Created World. Again someone can have the ritual role of Warrior Guard - with the emphasis on hard impenetrable solidity - but in the breakup of Society - with everything in disorder - he can be asked to act as Messenger with the emphasis on speed - and the Poet can then correctly declare (as Kh 821) - `There he is - standing solid as the Rock of 460 Gibraltar - running fast!' - or (as Aga 950) be transformed to express the Principle of Peace - and the Poet then describes him as `Standing Softly Hard' - the professors can only gape and avoid or alter the meaning. This is of course quite standard. If when the World is turned upside down the Poet declares - `There is Akhilles standing on his head' - some professor or other will write an article that it is impossible for the great hero to be shown in such an undignified position - and very good reasons will be given why `head' is an editorial blunder and should be changed to `feet' - without appreciating that this destroys the whole point of the statement (Euripides somewhere presents Akhilles in rags!). The `upside down' is indeed literal - the advantage of an 470 organized ritual system is that it can be symbolically altered to conform to the action - and thus at the end of the First Play the Poet presents the World turned Inside Out - at the end of the Second turned Upside Down - and in the Third plunged into the Abyss - and then for a moment displayed in Perfection - and at once with a laugh he sends it again to its Destruction - now also to its Nirvana (used here in the Buddhist sense of Death - as the etymological meaning - rather than - as deliberately taking over the Buddhist word in their religious struggle - the Hindu sense of a state beyond Death). The Aiskhylian contradictory statements are of course carefully controlled as 480 presenting a perversion and at once with a vast Pun the union of Principles and Symbols for the establishment of a new Rite - and Symbol and Ritual are again the basis of the many descriptions. Thus Klytemnestra speaking after the Murder (Aga 1437-47) is not coming out with a rag-bag of epithets (as in Shakespeare's Henry V) but each word is chosen deliberately - presenting in strict order the different Symbolic elements as would thus be easily grasped by an Educated mind - as she desperately tries to convince the Chorus that the Ritual has been correctly performed - it is as if a Black Mass has been performed in St Peter's - and the performer is trying to convince the stunned congregation that it is the proper Mass - See - this is the Cross - this the Chalice - here is the Wafer 490 - and see the Blood - the holiest Blood of Christendom - and indeed it is - the Blood of the murdered Pope whose body is still seen lying by the side. Thus of course comes the correct Pun - `the Draught - O the Wedded Lord' (eg Aga 1405) - they drink his Blood. Who is he? Agamemnon Aigisthos Orestes-Dionysos (as Eum 264f). A different Pun - as regularly used by the Poet - is seen in `Tome' - as deliberately constructed to be taken both as one word `Queen of Cut' - as in the translation - as represented by Klytemnestra and again the Idol wielding the Sword (as Kh 34} - and by the Hindu Goddess Durga - and as two (as regularly by the professors) - as thus presenting at once the new Rite and the ancient (as represented by the Kretan Captain). 500 Again the Poet could say `There was the Dalai Lama - brandishing his Sword - leading the charge - smiting the enemy - winning the Victory' - the professors (in general even today!) would consider this quite unexceptional and pass on - without realising the fundamental contradiction of the representative and embodiment of Peace and Non-violence and Humility acting in complete violation of all that he represented - what kind of Victory was this? This is indeed a fundamental point brought out in the Oresteia - the Principle of War wielding the Sword will always be supreme - if the Principle of Peace takes up the Sword in opposition - it will at once destroy its own Principle of Peace. 510 Even the Bowing as part of the Ritual of Greeting is very carefully organized - it is always correct. Thus in the First Play on hearing of the Disaster the Chorus (and Klytemnestra) are Bowed with grief - and thus also in the correct position for the entrance of Agamemnon. After the Murder is declared by Klytemnestra the Chorus collapses to the floor - and thus are correctly giving the Kowtow for Aigisthos as the Risen God. In the Second Play of Barbarism the Hierarchy has been Destroyed - and the Chorus as the Band of Discord is at once the Equal Troop - and recognizing no superior they are like Gods and thus after the Slaughter Orestes enters in his Bull-form Bowed Deep with Pain - as at 520 once in Death - and thus - as Klytemnestra before Agamemnon - in the correct ritual position for Elektra and the Chorus when they enter - dripping Reddish - erect in superiority - going up the Mound set in mid-Stage - as themselves Gods. This is indeed ritually correct - the Chorus first appear in Black - as in ritual Death - and drinking the Blood of the Goat as Aigisthos they are - as the regular Greek Rite - given Life - Risen from the Dead and become ritually Gods - and the word is thus used ambiguously in the Trilogy. In the Third Play both Orestes and the Chorus are in Death - and Barbarism - and thus correctly shown flat on the floor - and slowly comes the Rising - both keeping in step first both in the deep Bow - and then in the Half-Bow - ready with the verdict and 530 Victory to Rise erect - and so Orestes indeed stands erect to be established as the Sun-God-Creator Dionysos - while the Chorus in defeat collapses to the floor - as at once in the correct Kowtow for this Creator - now Risen in Majesty. They in turn slowly Rise again - becoming erect with the acceptance -and the Robing and Initiation into their new role as the Eumenides - as thus in a status of Equality with Athena herself. Chapter 3 The Demi-god The translators all assume Agamemnon is returning to a normal palace in the 540 middle of of a great city - like Roman emperors and modern European monarchs. No - the correct position is declared in the beginning by the Chorus in their first response to Klytemnestra - `I Fly the Word - out from Faithlessness' (Aga 268 - Peitho is clearly the same word as Faith and it is absurd to limit it with the superficial meaning Persuasion). This - showing the extreme precision of the language and construction of the Play - presupposes the simple ritual structure of the Temple-Creation as the embodiment of the Light of the Word of God - and beyond is the outer Darkness of Faithlessness. `I Fly the Word' means `I am leaving the Temple and the Light' - and then `out from Faithlessness' means just that - `I am come out from the outer Darkness' - then where is he? - at the 550 Boundary - indeed in the First Play presented visibly with Right the Walls and Towers and City-Gate opening on to the Stage. There is nothing related to normality - and everything - the whole Play - is always at the Boundary - at extremes. This is not an ordinary Boundary - it fluctuates through the Play - when the City is Destroyed it is all Boundary - this is not simply a Boundary of extremes but a Boundaryy where extremes meet. What happens at the Boundary? The Ritual of Death - and also of the Risen God. The extremes have in fact been presented at the very beginning of the Play but the professors have not realised it. The `Triple Six' (Aga 33) certainly 560 presents a game of dice - but it is far more than that - Once upon a time there was a vast kingdom ruled over by an Absolute Monarch - and every year at the time of the New Year he performed a ritual. He left the boundaries of his capital and went out into the wilderness - and in swaggered the Lord of Misrule. He installed himself on the throne and misruled the country. For three days he stayed there - then the Absolute Monarch returned. The Lord of Misrule at once went out and stopped him at the Boundary - `Get out!' The Absolute Monarch was very polite but insistent - `It is my country and I must have it'. After a lot of bluster and abuse the Lord of Misrule at 570 at last agreed - the matter would be settled with a throw of the dice. The Absolute Monarch threw and got a Six. The Lord of Misrule threw and got One. He blustered ranted raved - and refused to accept it. Ever polite the Absolute Monarch agreed - they would throw again. He threw and again he got a Six. The Lord of Misrule threw and again got One. He blustered ranted raved abused and refused to accept it. Ever polite the Absolute Monarch agreed - they would throw a third time. Again he threw and again he got a Six - the Triple Six. And again the Lord of Misrule threw and again got One (of course they were using different dice - one all Sixes and the other all Ones) - this time he accepted it - kowtowed and left in Silence while His Holiness the Dalai Lama - for it was he - 580 reentered the Potala Palace and sat again on his throne. This ritual was practised even up to his flight from Lhasa - and perhaps still today in his exile in Dharamshala. This Tibetan ritual is most ancient and beyond any influence of Greece - even the great epic of India - the Mahabharata - presents a game of dice with the kingdom as the stake - as indeed the starting point of the epic. Correctly this ritual goes back to the Early Bronze Age - and even the Stone Age - and spreading through migration - establishing itself at least in Greece and India - it still survives in this Tibetan rite. The meaning is clear - the Guard on the Roof is not an ordinary guard - he is the Lord of 590 Misrule - the Lord of Death - and Agamemnon in turn is the Risen Lord of Peace as the Buddha. The statement of the Guard (Aga 32) has not been understood - it does not mean that he will benefit from the luck of the Master - but that the luck of the Master is now his - the dice have been switched. Again the principle of the Buddha expressed by Aiskhylos was far more ancient and beyond any influence of his near contemporary the historical Shakyamuni - indeed claiming no originality - and dating back to the Bronze Age it spread again through the lands - being established in both Greece and India. See the Gold Mask of Mycenae - it represents the High Aryan Sun-God as presented with 600 the Mythic Name of Atreus - and the Smile is clearly the Smile of Beatitude - of the Risen Buddha. This deep Principle of Peace - declared with his description as Atreid - was presented with ritual correctness in the High King Agamemnon - and indeed his Mask is as this Gold Mask of Mycenae - and while the professors have been baffled by his negativeness - he says nothing controversial or even positive - never demurs or argues - even with his own people he takes the attitude `Of course you are absolutely right - I couldn't agree more' - he acts with humility `Treat me as Man' - and surrenders everything at the request - his Victory - his Kingdom - and even his Life - this is the correct behaviour of a `Buddhist'. (Thus too the Emperor of Japan expressing correctly the Buddhist 610 Principle refers to himself as `this humble person' - while Mongolian lamas cooperated eagerly in their murder by the communists.) Aiskhylos is again presenting the unity of extremes - after expressing the Pride of the Warrior - Agamemnon now presents Humility and Peace - having achieved the Victory - he now achieves Defeat - as the complete Man - embodying the totality of human experience. The phrase `achieves Defeat' may baffle the Western mind - but the idea is fundamental to all the great religions of the world - expressed in the ideal of Renunciation of Hinduism and Buddhism - as also in the Christian `lose thyself and find Christ'. The idea is given explicitly in the Aiskhylian 620 nikomenos - the active gives the Victory over the Other - as of the Warrior - while this is not the passive but used strictly as the middle - for the Victory over the Self - as declaring the Man of Peace - the Victor is identified with the Vanquished (giving the true contrast and point of Kh 890) - and again in the Aiskhylian autoktonos - `Self-Slaughter' (eg Aga 1635) - another word that has baffled the professors and been given all sorts of evasive meanings - and thus in the Seven the Lamentations over the one body on the stage are carefully organized to present both Slaughters at once - of War and of Peace. Thus also the final word spoken by Orestes (Eum 777) - as before of Elektra's invocation (Kh 148) - `Victory-Bearing' - is taken for granted as something positive in relation to Victory - and the Loeb (and the Lexicon) translates it as `bringing 630 Victory'. No - even when ritual has become a commonplace the professors are so misled by modern `liberal democratic' ideas that they almost wilfully refuse to understand it - the English usage is clear - we build `on' Victory - we win Victory `over' the enemy - but the thing bearing Victory is under Victory - it is the thing of Defeat - and appropriately the final word - after Defeat there is only Silence. Equally entering in the Golden Splendour and Pride of Universal Conqueror - of the Risen Sun-God in Majesty - with the Chorus as the people and also Queen Klytemnestra giving the deep Bow as overwhelmed by the Divine Radiance - does 640 Agamemnon just walk across the stage? No. When Klytemnestra finishes her speech the Chorus sings - and the first word they say is of `this fearsome thing' concerning the prostaterion - `of him who stands before' (Aga 976). Literally he is the Actor on the stage - figuratively it is the King - and with the deep correctness and precision of language this refers to the Actor-King - something terrible has happened concerning Agamemnon - and indeed following the `Buddhist' principle of Humility - that when someone abases himself before you the correct response is to abase yourself even further - Agamemnon winning the Defeat of Peace responds by giving the Kowtow - as at once a declaration of his Nirvana. This short scene where Agamemnon crosses the stage is indeed an awesome thing - 650 beyond fantasy - as the supreme achievement of Aiskhylos - the high peak of Western drama - but it needs to be seen to be properly appreciated. A point that has been so taken for granted that it seems not to have been discussed at all is the identity of the animal in the Omen - put down as a Hare. The Hare does not seem to have played any role in the Greek Mythology and Symbolism - and an examination shows clearly that it is in fact a Hind. The Lexicon quotes Aristotle as coupling it twice with another animal - and both times this is a species of deer - implying that we have here a third species of deer. The word is used once more - in the Eumenides (Eum 26) in relation to 660 Pentheus - but Euripides in the Bakkhai presents him dressed in a Fawnskin - and that ritual can hardly refer to a Hare. Most importantly the Myth refers to Agamemnon Destroying the Golden Hind of Artemis - and Artemis is brought in explicitly (Aga 135) - this is indeed a Hind and not an ordinary Hind but the Golden Hind - and following the rules the Golden Hind is indeed presented on the Stage - it is Kasandra in a Dress of Gold wearing Golden Deer-Horns as a Horned Hind as in the Third Labour of Herakles. This presents Agamemnon as the Destroyer rather than the Destroyed - and his role has not been understood. Fraenkl has indeed noted the oddity that the Play 670 is named after Agamemnon - yet we see him only in one scene - and even in that he says practically nothing - and does nothing except walk across the stage. Fraenkl refers to him as a `tired old gentleman'(!) - and obviously considers him an ordinary man. No - Agamemnon is the High King - he is the Demi-god. He is not just Agamemnon but Zeus-Agamemnon - he who was worshipped at Amyklai - and all the references in the Play to Zeus or to God - are references to Agamemnon - he dominates the Play from beginning to end. When the Chorus sing `What indeed among all these things found here has not been ordained of God?' (Aga 1488) - they are declaring that everything in the Play - including his own Murder - is at the command of Agamemnon. Klytemnestra declares `The Lord as giving the 670 Message on High - as out O from Troy with me' (Aga 316 - in the Oresteia at least `para' is regularly `on High' both literally and spiritually) - and what was the Message? The Fire on the Mountain representsed Troy Ablaze as the Destruction of the City - and as the Symbol reacheds across to Argos it representsed the Fiery Destruction also of Argos - as for Danaans and Trojans Equally (Aga 66-7) - and it went further - Klytemnestra first appears carrying a long Torch as at once a Spear - and here she breaks and Destroys that Torch - as the Destruction of the Ash-Spear of Priam - and at once the Spear of the Aryan Demi-god. Thus when she appears again she is no longer carrying a Torch-Spear but the Double-Axe - the change of Symbol declaring the change of Cultures. 680 The Demi-god has not been understood. He is supposed to be between the Gods and men - but there is a close parallel between the standard description of Zeus as `the Father of Gods and men' - and the famous fragment of Herakleitos `War is the Father of All - the King of All' - and the connexion is the Demi-god. The Demi-god was always a Warrior - and while he was there he was supreme - it is he who as the Father establishes the Gods and then mankind. The Demi- expresses his limitation. The Gods were there always with an annual Death and Resurrection - but for the Demi-god there was only a limited Time - he could not succeed himself - at the end of Time he went to his Death like Man (giving the correct 690 Herakleitian description `King'). Thus there were regularly two Demi-gods - who took it turn and turn about (like a two-party system) - and thus at Eleusis the Hierophants had two Names which they took in turn - and this of course explains the oddity that Peleus helps Jason and again Jason helps Peleus for the Conquest of Iolkos - and this indeed gives the structure of the Trilogy. Indeed the interplay of the Principle of War and the Principle of Peace forms a fundamental theme of the Oresteia. And while with the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the prevalent political climate the professors have some knowledge of the Principle of Peace - they do not realise that there is also a Principle of War - 700 which indeed established and dominated the two millennia of the Bronze Age - reaching its climax with the declaration of the Demi-god - and represented in the Greek polity above all by the Spartans - and surviving today only with the Sikh Khalsa. When Herakleitos speaks of War he means the High Principle of War as embodied in the Demi-god - the Demi-god being indeed the highest spiritual achievement of Man. When the Christian refers to his Christ as both the Son of God and the Son of Man - he unknowingly identifies the Father with the Demi-god (in his form as the High Aryan Sun-God). If the Classicists would understand the power of the Demi-god they should go to India - where the last of the Demi-gods is still worshipped - Rama - as the Indian Jason - the other Demi-god Karan - 710 and the two-party system - being overthrown by the Mahabharata War. The Demi-god as both God and Man caused problems - as the basis of the dilemma of the Chorus when Agamemnon enters - shall we treat you as God or shall we treat you as Man? The first question (Aga 785) is a matter of address - but the Chorus have already declared themselves - the first word used was `King' - they are treating him as Man - but the professors have gone wild over the second question - the root seb- refers to Bowing and the question is simply `How low should we Bow?' - and again they have answered it - they are giving a Deep Bow (at right-angles) as fit for a King - as distinct from a Kowtow (euseb- - 720 defined as a five-point contact with the ground - knees palms forehead) as the privilege of God. But he is Man and also God and he must be treated as both - and thus there is a contrast with Klytemnestra - she is also Bowing like the Chorus - but she is at the higher divine level (on the stage!) - and with that same action she is treating him as God - Anax (Aga 907 and 961 - a necessary word which the professors have wrongly argued away) - and thus Agamemnon is presented with ritual correctness as the Man-God - thus too we can understand the admonition to Klytemnestra `Treat me as Man not as God' (Aga 925). However the ritual presentation is still incomplete - not only must Agamemnon be treated at the same time as both Man and God - the others must also treat him as both 730 God and Man - thus after the Murder the position is reversed - Klytemnestra treats him as Man (with the mutilation) while the Chorus treats him as God. The first word they say to Aigisthos is `I do not Bow' (Aga 1612) - and this (with whatever translation) is in its context misunderstood - it does not mean `I am not Bowing and so I stand erect' (as the Chorus is generally presented) - they are in fact in the ritual Kowtow - but even then with the deep correctness of the Play it means `I am Kowtowing' - and Aigisthos is Man-Woman as Akhaian Hierophant - and again beside the Corpse of Agamemnon - as thus declared the object of the Kowtow - as Divine (as explicitly in Aga 1547) - as again the Chorus declaring their dedication for Nirvana. 740 Indeed with the deep power of ritual this has already been presented with the commonplace statement of the Chorus `I act with Compassion Upon' (Aga 1069) - the poor girl Kasandra has seen her City destroyed - her family slaughtered - and herself seized for Rape and Slavery - for the professors it is no more than a pathetic attempt at consolation and no comment is needed. But every statement in the Oresteia has point - and the realisation that Agamemnon is the Demi-god leads to the understanding of the true role of the Bride of the Demi-god - Kasandra is the embodiment of the Holy Wisdom of God - the Divine Compassion - and the enormity of the statement becomes clear - that Man sets his compassion 750 upon the Compassion of God for Man - as the declaration of the Destruction of the Holy Wisdom for Nirvana. And thus of course the Poet presents the theme of the First Play - the overthrow of the Divine Wisdom and the establishment of human wisdom - as expressed in the Renaissance-Enlightenment and the modern liberal democratic humanism - and presented with the Murder in the breakup of Chorus - a Babbledom effecting nothing - the Death of God is the Barbarism of the Man. If the development of the Culture of mankind was left to liberal democracy we would still be up in the trees. Chapter 4 The Way 760 The reaction of the Chorus to the Murder has not been understood. The breakup of the Chorus is presented as a crescendo - and at the climax - after the Ninth speaker - these old men - Swords drawn - hobbling on their staffs - actually charge towards the stage - and just as he is about to put his foot on the stage the Leader hesitates - gets second thoughts - declares that more information is required - and they slowly retreat back to their positions - Charge followed by Rout without any intervening Battle. This indeed gives the significance of the original Omen of the Eagle and the Hind. The professors have had much argument on this Omen - they are blind - it is really quite simple and is given 770 clearly by Sophokles (Oid Col 1224-6 - as Penguin) - Not to be born were best - And secondly being born to die at once - the best is of the Demi-god as Father - and this is the secondly as of the Son (Sophokles correctly organizes the passage to present at once the sequence of Cultures - as first the Kretan Captain - then the Daktyls - and thirdly the High Aryan Sun-God of Dharam - as correctly presented with Oidipous) - and Aiskhylos presents us with Birth going straight to Death (and Resurrection) - 780 without any intervening Life - as an Abortion. This is indeed one of the principles of the Trilogy - as an element of the Dramatic Seed - a Genesis - leading at once to a Dissolution - without any intervening Action - thus comes the beauty and deep construction of the Oresteia - as Aiskhylos takes this Omen as an Arrow and - like Odysseus and the Axe-handles - shoots it right through the Trilogy pinning down every single scene. This Omen is presented in the beginning with the Messenger of Victory declaring Destruction - and then with Agamemnon - the Risen Demi-god come as the High Creator - going at once to his Death without any Creation - and again at the end 790 with Orestes as the Risen Sun-God and Creator Dionysos - and everyone (including the audience as representing the Creation) goes straight to Nirvana. So also in the Second Play Orestes comes as Child for the performance of his Ritual of Manhood - and with the Slaying goes at once to his Death - without any period as Adult. The Omen is also presented in reverse - as Destruction followed by Creation without any intervening Death - as explicitly by Orestes - as the Lord of Destruction and himself Destroyed - Rising at once as the Creator for the Creation - and Abortion applies not only to Life but also to Death - as Aborted for the Risen God. Correctly with the Seed Aiskhylos is presenting in principle the same scene every time under a different mask - as variations on a theme. The 800 Omen is again deliberately presented even in speech - where the word of Birth is followed by the word of Death - and again Death by Birth again. Indeed the first word of the Chorus - `This the Tenth Year' - declares that for Agamemnon it is the end of Time - he is coming home - to Die. The Herald shows this quite clearly - but the professors have again just taken the obvious way out. The man has just come home so of course - like anyone - he will say Hail (Aga 508). No - in the preamble he speaks of Death - and then says `Even now' - and this means `Even now at this moment of my arrival after ten years away the first word I say is Farewell'! He is come home - to Die. And this is consonant 810 with the Omen where Birth is identified with Death. Similarly with the Reversal Death is identified with Birth. After perhaps two hours on the stage Orestes on his departure gives his last word - and again the professors give the obvious translation Farewell (Eum 775). No - presented on the Stage with Apollo Athena Hermes - Orestes is now the Risen God and Creator - appearing in Majesty before before mankind - and so he in fact says Hail. `Did She do the Deed - or did She not?' (Kh 1010). This question at this stage - after the Slaughter - has baffled the professors - they take it as a symptom of incipient madness. No - like all questions in Aiskhylos it is a good question. 820 The Slave declares earlier `The Dead are killing the Living' (Kh 886) - or does it mean `The Living is killing the Dead'? There is such a thing as ritual death - a famous example being in the story of the Spartan who survived Thermopylai - when he went home no-one - not even his own mother - would speak to or even acknowledge him. The rituals had been performed and he was dead - he had no business being alive. And Agamemnon crossing the stage is presented as going visibly to his ritual Death - his Nirvana - and the construction of the Play shows clearly that for this Man-Woman Aiskhylos correctly set this ritual Death of Peace coinciding with the natural death - as also with the ritual Death of War - the Slaying - as a triple coincidence. Did She do the deed - or did She 830 not? A very good question. However correctly the translation should be - `Did She perform the Rite - or did did She not?' This begs the question - what was the Rite she was supposed to perform? The Slaying was committed with the Third stroke to the neck (the first two disabled the limbs - Aga 1384-5) - but the picture shown - with the blood squirting all over the place - and even on the Roof - is clearly that of the standard Semitic ritual slaughter - where only the blood-vessel is cut to bleed the victim. But there is another Rite of Slaughter which is not so well known - practised above all by the Sikhs (and the standard execution in Saudi 840 Arabia - as depriving the criminal of the Islamic Rite) - Decapitation with a Single Stroke of the Sword - as performed at the New Year Ritual (Baisakhi) with the Decapitation of a White Goat - as also at the New Ritual of Delphi - as presented also in the Play with the Decapitation of Aigisthos (explicitly in the Myth - cf Kh 1047) - as wearing indeed the White Goatskin of his Name (giving the otherwise baffling reference to Pan - Aga 56) - as precisely this same Baisakhi Rite of the Warrior Sikhs. Both Rites prevailed in Classical Greece - Decapitation as the standard Kretan Warrior Rite - with this New Year Ritual established by the Akhaians - the Sikhs 850 representing in fact the the Indian branch - the Kurus - as the sole surviving representatives of the Bronze Age Warrior Culture. While the Semitic Religion of the Moon-God Sin - the true original God of both Islam and Israel (as different castes after centuries of independent evolution) was dominant in the late Third and early Second Millennium BC - at least in the Middle East - and should be assumed also in Egypt (giving the Name Sinai) - and also in India and Greece - as represented by Hermes and Artemis (Linear A expresses a Semitic language) - until overthrown by the Warrior Cultures. And Klytemnestra? If she was trying to perform the Sikh Warrior Rite she failed - and she was not allowed a second stroke - but in that failure she achieved the Semitic Rite. And the question is 860 formulated to express this double event with precision - `She performed the Rite - or She did not perform the Rite'. Thus also Klytemnestra of Peace - attempting the Kretan Rite - performs the Semitic-Aryan Rite - as Aryan Orestes the Kretan - the Poet presenting the confusion as at once the union of Rituals. And the perennial question - which Weapon did Klytemnestra use - the Sword or the Axe? Simply - both. And also the flint Sickle as used in the Castration of Ouranos - though here - as in the Myth of Perseus - the Sickle and Sword are combined in one Double-edged Weapon of War and Peace (Aga 1149) - the different edges used for the different Rites - the ambiguous phrase `even in Two' (Aga 870 1384) declares the different Rites as also the Pair Klytemnestra and Aigisthos - as the Pyre-Queen and Lord of Death - as necessary for the completion - with Zeus the Third. Three Strokes - Three Weapons - thus is Ritual - and thus the Aiskhylian vagueness when referring to the Murder Weapon. Even the Shield was used (Aga 1437) - and thus again the reference to Perseus (Kh 831) is deliberate - the professors have completely missed the point of the word `shield-revolving' (Aga 825) as applied to the Lion-King - to the extent that they have rejected it for a pointless mistranslation `shield-bearing'. Primarily this is a description of Orestes confronting Klytemnestra. Elektra 880 gave her `Last Low Roar' before the Tomb and the professors have assumed that she takes no further part in the Play - as also the Idol of Klytemnestra after her speeches. In fact both appear performing speechlessly on the stage almost through the rest of the Plays. Thus here Orestes has the support of both Pylades and Elektra - and the position is precisely as Perseus (Kh 831) with Hermes and Athena before Medousa - he cannot bear to look at the Mother. Elektra - playing the role of Athena who provides the shield for Perseus - solves the problem by taking a Shield from the wall and putting it on Orestes's arm reversed - herself thus assuming the role of Aisa ` Queen of the Law of Bronze' (Kh 927) - as a Daktylic form of Athena - and thus also we have the correct use of the middle - 890 `Guard for thyself from the Mother here' (Kh 924) - with the Shield he is doing precisely that! And now Orestes using the Mirror-Shield can attack without looking directly at the Mother - and now Klytemnestra knows she has failed and gives her cry of terror (Kh 928). And thus the compound word - seen also with Agamemnon in the round Bath - as a dead Spartan brought home on his Shield - and with Athena's Shield reversing the turn from Attack to Guard - presents a vast principle of construction - one of the key rules of the Oresteia - whenever anyone speaks -the speech - while relevant to the immediate scene - is at once a description and commentary on other scenes - as an interpretation in accordance with the Principles Symbols Rituals - each with his own - as directed to the 900 final Ritual of Dionysos - and checked indeed by the judge of the relevant caste - nothing in the Play goes outside the Play - it is a closed World - and thus the Play builds on itself - the Seed grows into a Tree. But even the number of strokes - of vast ritual importance in the Play - has not been understood by the professors. It is recorded somewhere that in the ancient Athenian Ritual of the Scapegoat there were Seven strokes. There were regularly two Scapegoats - one male and one female - and it has been assumed they were each given Seven Strokes. No - they were given Seven Strokes in total - Four for the Man and Three for the Woman. It is precisely these Seven Strokes that are 910 given to Dionysos and his Slave in the Frogs - with the joke that the Four Strokes of the Man are given to the Womanly Dionysos - and the Three of the Woman to the Manly Slave. The professors have not realised that in fact the entire Frogs - from the preliminary Victory in Battle to the Equal Contest - is a parody of the Oresteia - and here too this Scourging is seen explicitly - given by Pylades (`Lord of the Door' - as Aiakos in the Frogs) to the Womanly Orestes and the Manly Elektra (`I am like a Slave' - Kh 135) - and this is correctly the `Double Scourge' of the Chorus (Kh 375). The Scourging is correct - Four for the Man and Three for the Woman - but for the Womanly Agamemnon there are only Three murderous strokes of the weapon - as of the Woman - and 920 one can very well ask again - `Did She perform the Rite - or not?' Most importantly the professors have also completely failed to understand the significance of `dishonour-mourning' (Eum 792) - as carefully chosen to describe the Chorus. It is regularly taken as `you who are mourning for your lost honour' - but the ritual point is lost. The proper interpretation is - `you are mourning in dishonour? - I will give you the Dishonour of Mourning' - the function of the Chorus in the new Creation is the dishonoured role of mourning for the dead - and thus comes the earlier description (Eum 385f) of the Chorus as Dishonoured ones chasing Dishonoured offices (Eum 385f). Who then are the Eumenides? They 930 are seen today as the old keening women still found in the Greek rite - and the goal of the entire Trilogy is precisely the establishment of these Women - the keening associated with the Pyre-Rite - and the correct Ritual of Death. What then is the importance of the Eumenides? In one word - Salvation - and the opposition between the Goals of Nirvana - presented by the Greek-Semitic Barus `Lord of the Heavy Law' - and Salvation - presented with Dionysos as the Saviour - the Lord of Salvation - is the fundamental theme of the Play - an opposition presented indeed with the Murder of Agamemnon - where the Rite (Kh 1010) and the Sword of Aigisthos declare Salvation - and indeed the new Creation of Dionysos 940 is established for one end only - to bring Salvation to all mankind - and the Eumenides being are the essential element in thise Ritual of Salvation. Thus as Dionysos Risen in Majesty as the Sun-God-Creator represents Life and the Alpha - so his first act is the establishment of the Omega - the Goal of Death and Salvation - giving the basis and point of the Omen - and only when the Goal has been declared can the Creation be established as directed to that Goal - and this is of course why Athena finds it necessary to persuade them to play their role in the new dispensation. Plutarch on Cato uses the word `adiathetos' - the preposition dia- `through' 950 ritually implies through Death as to Salvation - and thus the word literally means `with no Setting Through' - as `not organized in accordance with his Principle of Salvation' - as indeed worthy of the greatest regret. That the Greek Religion was based on Salvation has indeed been suggested by some - and it is this Principle that gives the point to famous Greek sayings as `Call no man Happy until he is Dead' and `The Two Happiest Days of a Woman's life are the Days of her Marriage and of her Funeral' - both as a Rebirth into a higher state - but the whole Western approach has been distorted by Christian chauvinism - with the absurd idea that they have some kind of monopoly of Salvation. The evidence is quite clear. The Greek word for this Ritual of Salvation was `telos' 960 - and thus we have the regular Homeric phrase `thanatoio telosde'. The final -de means `to' as motion towards - and the professors taking the genitive regularly translate the phrase `to the ritual of death' - except that telos is not a general word for ritual - but is in itself essentially related to the end - and clearly something has been left out in the translation. They have not given full value to the suffix awhich is a direction - and direction is specifiefied if the ablative is used - giving `from Death to the Ritual of Salvation' - and the word-order then being precise - with first Death - then Salvation - as indeed a declaration of the Rite - first as a necessary preliminary there must be Nirvana - and then the achievement of Salvation. 970 What then is the purpose of the Seven Strokes? - simply the ritual establishment of Nirvana - as the complete Destruction of the powers of the individual - and the distinction between Man and Woman as expressed in the different number of Strokes declares the ancient principle (as Euripides in Oxford Book of Greek Verse 401) - for Man there is Salvation but for Woman there is only Nirvana - and the Fourth Stroke of Man was necessary for the Destruction of his Salvation as thus declaring his Nirvana - as giving the vast significance of the Three Strokes onf Agamemnon - he has been Destroyed for his Nirvana but his Salvation still remains - and thus after the Slaughter by Orestes he achieves his 980 Resurrection of Peace as the Sun-God - did She perform the Rite - or not? I first translated the Oresteia as directed to Death - and while the achievement of Nirvana is indeed a triumph - the final Cry of Triumph sounded a little odd. I decided that if there was another goal it would be declared in Athena's final speech. I examined the last four lines - centred on the second - and suddenly saw that if the ablative were used the line would read `speed FROM Fire' - and then realised that this was precisely what Aiskhylos intended - he tried to make it easy by deliberately mentioning the `Baptism of the Phoinix' in the previous line (the Red Phoinix appropriate for the Eumenides as now given their Red 990 dresses) - and then with the Cremation Ritual this could only imply a Life after Death - Salvation - and with this the final Cry of Triumph sounded true. The genitive can be presented in other ways using compounds and derivatives - and the Greek genitive case should regularly be considered an ablative - as always in this translation. And thus again the Symbol of the Chariot (Kh 660) can be understood - the God Driving the Chariot is Guiding all mankind to Death - and also to Salvation - and the Chariot so often found on ancient Greek sarcophagi - and also at Konarak - is indeed primarily the Warrior Symbol of Salvation - as in the Mahabharata explicitly Conveying Yudhisthir to Heaven - thus with the ablative it is driven `from the Night' of Nirvana - the middle again regularly 1000 declaring Salvation - One is Driving for One's Resurrection - yet again the Creation has already been Destroyed - and the Chariot is on the Boundary as the Vehicle of Salvation - and Orestes as the Lord of Salvation is Driving for his own Resurrection. The opposition between Nirvana and Salvation as presented throughout the Tragedy is indeed the basis of the alternatives given by the different actors - and so just before Athena gives the verdict Orestes (Eum 746) presents the alternatives of Hanging and the Light - and the Chorus (Eum 747) reply with Ruin and Guarding the Honours - as in both cases first Nirvana and then the Ritual of Salvation - 1010 the alternatives being presented more elaborately as by the Chorus on seeing the Herald (Aga 498-9). The deeper and deeper understanding of these alternatives (a standard system of Buddhist teaching) being associated with the deeper understanding of the spirit - thus at the professorial level as most superficial and material - the first alternative is considered good and the second bad - but then with an understanding of the Religion and the Way of Salvation - it is quickly realised that the first alternative is bad and the second good - in turn when the deep meaning of Death and the Way of Nirvana is understood - then it is realised that both alternatives are good - and again when the realisation comes that the Creation is an Illusion - the only Reality being the Pyre as Kosmos - 1020 then the understanding comes that both Ways are in fact bad - so again when it is realised that even from the Pyre there arises the Divine Principle of God - as expressed in Salvation and the Cosmic Harmony - then the final understanding comes - both Ways are good - both Ways are bad - they are irrelevant. Chapter 5 Mitanni The professorial ignorance of the Greek language is only a symptom of their fundamental ignorance of the origin and development of Language itself - as indeed of prime importance in the understanding of ancient Religion and Ritual - 1030 and in turn of the secret Oresteia. As clearly shown in the Jewish Myth of the Tower of Babel - Language is a deliberate invention of the Priests - as again on the basis of Principle Symbol Ritual - and it is their rejection of this that has led to the complete failure of the Western philologists - with the Priestly origin the older and obvious idea of original a corrupting to e and o is undoubtedly correct - how could the reverse process have ever been accepted?. The idea of a `democratic' development of Language is simply ludicrous - but thus the professors have approached the ancient writings with a superficial mind - and succeeded only in giving superficial trivialising translations - debasing the ancient Cultures to utter meaninglessness. 1040 The origin of Language is clear - in the Beginning a Symbolism was established and everything was brought into this Symbolism including Sound - the Syllable. It was then the Symbolic identification - as here of the Syllable and material objects - that gave rise to the Name - and to the original material developments of Culture. Thus at first there were only nouns - and these nouns were then developed into verbs - giving rise in turn to further nouns - the first person regularly declaring the God - with of course the ritual implication that any other speaker at once declared that he was speaking only in accordance with the Cosmic Scheme - as the mouth-piece of the Creator God. As different communities 1050 developed they distinguished themselves with different principal Syllables - as the first syllable of the Divine Name - as also of the principal ritual objects. These different ritual Syllables were deliberately used for distinction - close communities automatically changing the appropriate syllable to conform - this is indeed the true basis of the various alternations noted by the professors - as the r-l s-t s-k alternations - and the `Indo-European laryngeals' can be safely forgotten - all the alternations should have a common origin - and it was always absurd giving a special origin to one. Strangely while the philologists have recognized the r-l alternation - the 1060 parallel v-y alternation has escaped them. Two examples here will suffice - Sanskrit `nava' beside Hindi `naya' `new' - and the Sanskrit disjunctive `va' beside Hindi `ya' `or'. This indeed reveals one of the major errors of the philologists - their assumption that the Prakrit (demotic) languages of North India are derived from Sanskrit. Though there is much agreement in vocabulary - this alternation shows that the assumption is simply not true - as is indeed emphasized by the different grammars. This v-y alternation is clearly present in the Greek dialects. The va corrupts down to `a and omega and up to ba - the ancient Greek beta should be pronounced 1070 like the Spanish b ie somewhere between the b and v of English - while the ya corrupts down to eta and `i and up to ja and even the hard ga - represented by the Greek gamma - it is no accident that it looks like the Latin y - as anciently pronounced both hard and soft according to the word. Thus the Greek disjunctive `e is a straightforward corruption of the Hindi ya - and neos (Ionic neios) a corruption rather of the Hindi naya. Again in ancient inscriptions the gamma is found several times where the digamma is expected. The professors have made the bizarre assumption that this gamma was written for the digamma (see eg goida and goinos in the Lexicon) as correctly these are further examples of the v-y alternation. In general the difference between Aeolic and Ionic is that the 1080 first like Sanskrit is more a v-language - the second like Hindi a y-language. One consequence is seen in the word baru(s). In Greek the Lexicon simply gives the meaning `heavy'. However this word is also seen in a Semitic language as Akkadian with the meaning `wise man'. Taking the g-alternate we get garu - which by vowel assimilation gives the Sanskrit `guru' (the original `a' is seen in the higher degrees of the word - comparative `gariyas' and superlative `garistha') which means both `heavy' and `wise man - Guru'. The implication is that the Greek word should really be given both meanings as well - `heavy' and `Guru'. Thus the Loeb translates `Falls heavily on' (Kh 36) - but this is simply not 1090 the translation - which for the Classicists should be `the Heavy One falls' - which is of course quite meaningless for the Westerner - leading to the desperate expedient of the Loeb translator. However if the translation is `the Guru falls' - one can see the vast calamity declared by the Poet and indeed presented on the stage - asnd quite different from anything envisaged by the Western Classicists. The professors here with their liberal democratic approach would say that the original meaning was `heavy' as applied to material things - and this was then raised to abstract things - as leading on to the secondary meaning `Guru'. Correctly with the Priestly origin of language the development is the reverse - with the meaning expressing first the deep spiritual teachings of 1100 the `Guru' - and as then applied to material things. The v-y alternation is most important in relation to the Indo-European genitive - which as for the vowel declension is taken as the -ya - as found in Sanskrit and corrupting to the -i of Latin and the -oio of Homer - and the professors have decided that - through some obscure mechanism - it is the dropping of the Homeric i that has led to genitives as the Homeric -oo - Ionic -ou - and even the Aeolic omega - when correctly these three show the va-alternate in corruption - giving directly the Aeolic form. The va-genitive does not appear to be found explicitly in any recognized Indo-European language - but it is found - and helps 1110 to solve one of the great conundrums of Antiquity. The controversy over the language of Der Mitannibrief is old - even the name is not agreed - I will use the latest candidate `Hurrian' or `Harri' - and while some try to associate it with Indo-European others - as the Semitist author of `Introduction to Hurrian' (E A Speiser 1941) - deny the relationship. The nominative in -s and dative in -a-e - as a corruption of the Sanskrit -aya and leading to the standard Greek dative - are both found - and the n-endings - against the Sanskrit -m - relate the language to Greek (though the accusative endings are often left out - perhaps for assimilation to the next word) - and now 1120 the genitive in -wa completes the relationship with Indo-European. Even the conjugation shows relationships with Greek - which seem to have escaped the professors. The optative is found as -ien and -ieta - as of course the standard Greek optative - active in -eie with `movable' n - and middle - and there are clear forms of the s-aorist - and also the verbal suffix -kk. I recall reading the book. The Semitist begins by denying the relationship with Indo-European. For the narrowest of chauvinistic reasons - I was not prepared to abandon the Emperor Dasrath of Mitanni - with that grand old Indian epic name - to the barbarians - I rejected his assertion and insisted the language was 1130 Indo-European - and gave battle. As the Semitist built up his system I built up a counter-system of Indo-European - and eventually reached this suffix. The Semitist said that no-one knew what it meant. I stopped - considered it for all of five-ten seconds and decided `iterative-durative' - and read on. The Semitist went into a discourse - and evidently after a thorough study of every occurrence of the suffix he said the only conclusion he could reach was iterative-durative! I had won. The solution was simple - by my theories the second letter was the important one - the first could vary or be assimilated to the second - so I looked for a two-letter suffix ending in k - and quickly found the Greek -sk - iterative-durative. 1140 Having finished the book and completed my system - I decided to go back and test both systems on every example quoted - and for every example both systems worked - except one - there his system stood - but in spite of every effort the Indo- European failed. For three days I just looked at that phrase - and got nowhere. I couldn't be wrong - so in desperation I decided on the final chance - see the original. Luckily it was there - Friedrich's transliteration (Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmaler - 1932) - I looked for the quotation - and the Semitist had cheated! There was a word inumanin - which we both agreed began a sentence - but with one difference - I said `always' - he said `almost always' - and the 1150 `almost' was here - the word followed the quotation - with one word in between - that intermediate word added to the quotation his system collapsed - which is of course why he left it out - and the Indo-European system prevailed. As Hittite presents the t-third declension - so Harri presents the second o-declension - as two of the original languages that in combination led to the establishment of Classical Greek. The Emperor's Name is from uneiform script - developed for Semitic languages - and so often unable to represent Indo-European words correctly - transliterated - (indeed more indefinitely than it appears) as Dus-ratta. The stumbling-block for 1160 the savants is the first vowel - which they cannot reconcile with the Sanskrit `a' of Dasrath (or rather Dashrath). An examination of the text shows clearly that the scribe is not writing in `Sanskrit' but in `Prakrit' (demotic) - and the same vowel is found in the name `Hurri' - as given in the Old Testament of the Jews as `Horite' - showing the pronunciation as rather an `o' giving `Dos-' (Speiser agrees that this u represents o - there is another u as u-proper) - but this is simply a standard `rounding' of the vowel `a' - precisely as a Bengali pronounces the vowel today - this is corroborated by Hurrian words from Nuzi and Ras Shamra - which show an interchange of a and u (see Speiser). Thus also the name Hurri itself as Horri shows again this `Bengali' rounding from an original 1170 Harri - as related to the Punjabi prefix Har - as in names like Har-gobind - and giving the name Hari (pronounced Hori by the Bengali) to Indra - the Indian Ares - and as conclusive the Jewish book refers to the land of these people as Harran - so far as the Name has a meaning it should be found in the Greek root Khar-. While the small vocabulary developed by the Westerners should in general be scrapped - an occasional word can remain. Thus sawal `year' can be taken as correct - it corrupts to saal which is not found in Sanskrit - but is standard as the word in North India and in Persian. It is not necessary to give a long statement on the Harri language - and it is sufficient to present a recurrent 1180 clause - clearly marking the major divisions - seniuutaman dive shukku golli The professors translate the first word as `for my brother' - the reference being to the Pharoah Amonhotep III. `Brother' is not a bad guess based on European customs and for simplicity I will use it - but the meaning is known with precision as the word still exists in Punjabi - senia - the relationship between two people whose children are married - 1190 it is doubtful if there is a similar word in any European language! For the grammatical form the Semitist sets the -uu- as a possessive suffix `my' and the final -ta as the dative - but with the Greek relationship the -iuu- should be identified with the standard -eu- endings and this is corroborated by a form in -iuua which as -eua gives the standard Greek accusative. The ending is then the Greek adverbial ending of direction - -tha `whither' (as in entha - see the Lexicon) forming a triad with `-thi' `where' and `-then' `whence' (explicitly with Zeus - Aga 43). The -man is a standard emphasis found in Greek and 1200 Sanskrit. All words of emphasis express Principle as the Fundament as `down to the bottom' - and Principle in turn is related to the Religon and Culture. Here the word is clearly related to the Moon as the Moon-Principle - as ritually appropriate to the ancient religion of Egypt and so to the Pharoah. The next word is translated by the professors - dive - word thing They have misunderstood it. The word indeed implies their meaning - but only on the standard Greek (and Sanskrit) basis of giving the adjective with the noun implicit - and the word here is a simple corruption of an original divya - the 1210 standard Sanskrit for `divine'. Similarly shukku - with the same u for a - is an adjective based on the Sanskrit root shak- `to have power' - as giving Shakti `Power' - as associated with the Goddess Kali - the final word given the meaning `say'. Indeed it shows the b-g alternation and is related to the Greek boul- `advise - utter with wisdom' - and also to the standard Prakrit North Indian word bol- identical to the Greek word but where the original meaning has been degraded to a superficial `say'. The form is a simple Prakrit corruption of the Sanskrit gerund in -ya (Bengali corrupts it to -e). With the ritual principles a translation would thus be - 1220 Towards the Lord of the `Brotherhood' here - as Rising now with the Wisdom of Moon - O having Uttered as Cosmic the Word - of Mind Divine and the Power of Earth - fit utterance of the High King. This translation indeed presents high religion far removed from any concept of the Western professors - as a demonstration of their complete superficiality. This is indeed the basis of their almost complete failure with Der Mitannibrief - so also the entire extant corpus of translations from the ancient writings should be simply scrapped. 1230 The Emperot Dasrath - Lord of the Mitanni Empire (his Mitanni title is given as ip-ri as a variation of the Latin Imperator - and related to the Greek Ep-eios - all as Aryan) indeed gives his descent - and all ancient genealogies showed descent not in biology but in ritual - presenting the role on the Cosmic Stage. Thus first comes Sutarna - this is a simple development of the Sanskrit Suta `Charioteer' - as a standard title of the Sun-God - as indeed declared by the initial Su- - thus the Divine Child Karan - sprung from the Sun-God Savitar - is regularly called Suta-putra `Son of the Charioteer' - in the Greek Myth the relationship is seen in the Sun-God and Charioteer Helios - the development 1240 simply declaring the Sun-God as transformed and reestablished in a later Culture (for Salvation). The second is taken as Arta-tama - however the middle syllables should be taken as scribal duplication (as indicating a voiceless consonant) - and the Name as Artama is then just a masculine form of Artemis (Doric Artamis) `Lady of Arta' - Arta as the Sanskrit Rita - `the Creative Law' - Destroying for Nirvana as the Law of Salvation - and then the Name means `Lord of the Creative Law' - fit title of the Lord of the Silver Bow Apollo - Twin of Artemis - with the longer form -tama as the standard Sanskrit superlative - then the whole is translated `the Most Deep Lord of Arta' - Apollo transformed for the Demi-god - as the Aryan Creator Ares of Dharam. Thus in the third generation the Emperor 1250 Dasrath declares himself the High Aryan Sun-God (of Dharam - as with the Aryan Demi-god). `Dasrath' itself is translated `Lord of Ten Chariots' - but this is misleading - and the correct translation is `Lord of the Chariot of Ten' - where Ten is the ritual Akhaian Cosmic Number (of Aryan of Dharam - as Apollo - and also associated with Herakles - and even today with the Jews) - thus the meaning is properly `Lord of the Cosmic Chariot' - as indeed presented visibly in the great Chariot-Temple of Konarak - it is this Chariot as the Vehicle of Salvation that gives the ritual unity of the genealogy - as presented again most famously before the great Mahabharata Battle with the Sun-God-Creator of Peace - Krishna as Charioteer of Dharam - and Arjun as Aryan of Kam - set in their Chariot - 1260 establishing the philosophy of Salvation of Hinduism - the Bhagavad Gita. ? However this Mitanni Letter itself - as not written in the standard diplomatic Akkadian - was clearly a private communication - and a reading shows that it was a poetic statement - and while sent in the name of the Emperor Dasrath - it was clearly written by the `Brahman' Court Poet - and expressing a tradition that is still extant in India and the Middle East - he indeed gives his Name. A problem arises as to the value of the first syllable. The cuneiform rule is evidently that if followed by a vowel the value is Mas- and if by a consonant Bar-. Here 1270 the syllable is undoubtedly followed by a vowel and so Friedrich transliterates Mas-. However if we use the value Bar- the name becomes Baradhvir - a simple Prakrit pronunciation of the Sanskrit Vardha-vira `Salvation of the Warrior' (the first part related to the Greek Ortho-) - fit Name for a Brahman Poet of the Warrior Culture. The cuneiform rule is not necessarily violated - it only means that the scribe set the value of the first syllable from the Sanskrit form even though he actually wrote the Prakrit form of the Name (a higher `educated' approach in contrast with the Indian habit of writing the Sanskrit form and then giving it the Prakrit pronunciation!) - and this is again evidence that while a Prakrit language is being written - as clearly in general use - the Priests 1280 themselves knew a higher language - as again some form of Sanskrit. The Name is followed by the gerund (now in its correct Sanskrit form!) of the root kath- - as standard Sanskrit `state' `declare' - and again as the Avestan Gatha `Hymn' (k and g are not distinguished) - as thus correctly set with the Poet. Clearly the `a' is sometimes pronounced `o' and sometimes remains `a' (as Homer mixes dialects even in the same Line) - and the difference reflects the different pronunciations among the different castes in the mix of peoples - a Brahman would of course insist on the `a' (and the correct gerund) - while the Warriors evidently preferred the `o' - as in Aeolic. 1290 This Name - which I have now literally resurrected from the sands of Time - should indeed be given the highest honour - for this Mitanni Letter - as the sole surviving record of the high Indo-European singers of the Late Bronze Age - is Poetry at the highest level - as the supreme extant expression of the Poetic Art for the Indo-European world - and even the greatest of those now known - Homer Sappho Aiskhylos Valmiki Kalidas Bhavabhuti - would bow down to this ancient Court Poet of the Mitanni Kings. Indeed this Letter can be seen as for practical purposes an original Song of Orpheus - or should I put it the other way round? Chapter 6 The Bronze Age 1300 The Mitanni Letter - as is generally accepted (the scribe sometimes also uses cuneiform ideograms) was sent with two Mitanni princesses to the Egyptian Pharoah Amonhotep III for marriage into the royal family - and two golden statues were asked for in return. The form of address of the Pharoah implies that the sending of the princesses was a unilateral act of the Emperor - and the decision on the marriage was entirely with the Pharoah. The emphasis is on one - Tadukhepa - and there is some controversy over her marriage - some holding that she married the Pharoah - and others his son Amonhotep IV Akhenaton - and some even declare that she married both - while a very few would identify her with Nefretiti Queen of 1310 Egypt. From the meaning of the Punjabi senia it is now clear that she married only the son - and this Poetic Letter was in fact an exhortation to the princess that she was taking with her and should - as the embodiment and representative - set in the Land of Egypt the vast and high Culture of the Aryanized Akhaians of the High Aryan Sun-God of Dharam - the High Akhaian Rite - the translated phrase thus deliberately emphasizing the Semitic Moon-Principle of Egypt associated with Nirvana - beside the Sun-Symbol of Aryan Salvation expressed in the Utterance. The construction is ritually correct - the Pharoah is identified with the Moon-God as Lord of Death - the Word of Salvation regularly directed to Death as Nirvana - with the implication that here the Word will give Salvation to the Lord of Death 1320 himself - as Rising again now transformed for the new High AKhaian Rite giving Salvation of Peace to the people of Egypt. The deep effect of this Letter on a young impressionable princess is seen in its careful preservation in the treasury of Akhenaton's capital at Tell-el-Amarna - and the consequences of the associated religious revolution is a part of history. This revolution had nothing to do with any `original' religious thought of the Pharoah Akhenaton - but was simply the imposition of the Northern High Akhaian Warrior Culture of Salvation on an ancient Priesthood dedicated to the High Principle of Peace and Nirvana - leading to religious turmoil and counter- 1330 revolution and the Exodus - such is the vast power of the Poet - as expressed in this Letter - that it has altered the course of history - the consequences of which are seen even to this day. As indeed some say the power behind the religious change was not so much Akhenaton as the princess - who took the Throne-Name Nefretiti. The Name has not been understood. The professors give it a standard `Egyptian' meaning `The Beautiful One has come' (which is meaningless) - however the first part Nefre is found in Egyptian with the meaning `low cloud - mist' precisely as the Greek Aphros - and the forms show that this Egyptian meaning (evidently 1340 rare) is simply the Greek word set with the ritual Egyptian initial - A replaced with the Egyptian Na. This change is in fact presented also in Der Mitannibrief with the Name of the Pharoah himself. Evidently as fitting a private communication he is addressed with his personal Name - as restored in the Akkadian preamble and then clearly in its first occurrence in the Letter proper as Nimmuria (or Nemmoria - with the ambiguity of the cuneiform i) - then regularly as Immuria (showing a clear Indo-European form as a derivative of the Greek Emmoros as Ares) - as a deliberate rejection of the ancient Egyptian religion - and declaration of the High Akhaian Culture in the Kingship. 1350 However the second part of the Queen's Name -titi causes problems - some do not accept it as Egyptian and the professors are baffled. If we now look at the Greek form of the first part - we get Efre-titi or Aphro-titi - and we clearly have an Egyptian adaptation of the Greek Aryanized Sun-Goddess Aphrodite - and not arbitrarily but in the correct ritual role - the Queen firmly identifying herself with the Culture of the Demi-god - as herself visibly presenting the establishment of the Aryanized Culture in Egypt. The ritual precision of the Letter is clear - Aphrodite as the Bride of Ares is Golden Aphrodite - thus the Emperor - declaring the role - is simply exchanging one Golden Goddess for another - one living for a statue - Two of each - as the correct ritual declaration of Aryan Kam. 1360 Thus with the spread of the Name - when presented with the nameless Hittite Sun-Goddess of Arinna we can now declare the Name - Aphrodite. Her consort the Storm-God can equally be Named - Indra is famously known in Anatolia at this time - however the identification with Storm and his Symbol of the Lion declares Ares of Dharam - thus in the Oresteia Orestes presented as Ares (see Kh 162) is ritually identified with Storm (Kh 1066). Equally Aton - the Name of the new High Sun-God of Egypt - given the same softening of the `t' becomes Adon - as simply related to Adonis - the Name of the Hunter and consort of Aphrodite - as Ares of Dharam - as a form of Apollo - however here the Name declares the High Ritual - 1370 Adonis raised as Aton as the High Aryan Sun-God of Dharam - as a transformed Helios - as embodied in the Emperor Dasrath himself. However even the Name Aphrodite is not understood - the professors are again baffled by the second part - and can only postulate an inserted d. The two forms of the Name show that the second part must be taken whole - and whether -titi or -dite the meaning is clear - against the standard Greek Titanis it is an alternative form of Titaness - both being standard feminine derivatives of an original Tita - and the Name means `Titaness of Mist'. The Titans have been identified with the Indian Daityas - as a derivative of Diti - and we see both 1380 the hard and soft initials - and so far as the Name had a meaning it is easily seen - the Indian word points to the English word Day - and this is confirmed by the Greek - Tita `Day' - and the Titans are `Lords of Day' - as after the Night of Nirvana declaring the Day of Salvation - fit title of the Sun-God - The Titans were indeed Sun-Gods as the deities of an ancient Sun-Culture - and this Titanic Culture can be identified. It was established with a new Principle and a new Ritual of War identified with the Captain of the Gate - as ushering in the Bronze Age of history - and extending over the first half of the Third Millennium BC. It was one of the great Cultures in the history of mankind - 1390 associated with the Memphite Theology and the union of Egypt - as declared with the establishment of the Sceptre of Ass's Ears - and represented by the Sun-God Re (giving the Indian Name Rai - the Spanish title Rey - and the English words `ray' and in turn `real' - as in Spanish - as not the `realism' of the material world but the Real World - the High Culture of the Sun-God expressed through the Kingship - a form of `royal' - as in Spanish) - and this Culture is represented for the Egyptians by the prefix Syllable Na. This was the Golden Age of Hesiod - achieving a peak that was not to be surpassed until the arrival of the Demi-gods - and the vast achievement of this Culture is seen primarily in the Titanic Name - the meaning given is not sufficient - as Day follows Night - as the Night of 1400 Death and Nirvana - so here Day declares the Light of Salvation - the Titans with their new Principle were the original Lords of Salvation - worshipped to this day under the Names of Krishna and Christ - the ancient Titanic Priestly caste still survives - as taken over and absorbed in the Brahmans - in Temples in India - while the high prestige of Sumerian presents the original Titanic language. This was followed by the Semitic Culture of the Moon-God Sin - seen most vividly in the royal graves of Sumerian Ur in Lower Mesopotamia (Woolley) - as dominant for half a millennium - until overthrown in the early Second Millennium BC by the Warrior Cultures - and indeed still surviving in the religions of Islam and 1410 Israel. This was the Silver Age of Hesiod - associated with Troy II and with the building of the great pyramids of Egypt - and represented in Ancient Greece by the Arkadians as Semitic Warriors as primarily Bowmen. In the Jewish tradition this Culture was originally established by the Patriarch Abraham. The meaning of this Name has not been properly understood. the Semitists correctly translate `the Father of All' and `the Father of the People' - but this is secondary - if the prefixed Semitic syllable - seen also in Names lke Atlas and Eteokles - is removed - the Name is -braham - relating the Name to Brahma - the Hindu Creator - and so at once `the Father of All' as the Lord of Salvation - and the prefix thus declares the Patriarch - giving the true meaning of the Name - as `the Brahman 1420 Creator' - associated with the ritual change of the Salvation of the Sun-God - as from the Titanic Sun-Culture - set with the Religion of the Semitic Moon-God Sin. The Name Sin itself is a standard corruption as of the Sanskrit Shayana `Lying' (seen also as the Prakrit Sen - a standard Bengali Name) - the Principle being expressed in the Myth of the Greek Moon-God Endymion - where the basic part Endy- is also seen with the Indian Moon-God Indu. The Semitic Culture was followed - as shown by Hesiod - by the Brazen Race. This represents the Warrior Cultures which came in two waves during the mid-Second Millennium BC. They were all developed originally in the Caucasian region and 1430 established themselves - as large clans broke up and went conquering in different directions. However all these clans - as themselves originally just breakaways - were ritually associated with one or the other of the two original and greatest clans - whose Names have remained through history - the Kretans and the Aryans. Thus when Odysseus declares himself a Kretan he is in fact telling the literal truth and relying on the confusion (to which the Western professors are also subject) between Cretan and Kretan - islander and eponymous clan. The Kretans - Aryanized - are seen as the Akhaians - who came first about 1800 BC - they are the Indian Kurus (by vowel assimilation from an original Karu - as with Guru) - the Lords of Empire - based in the Punjab - one of the protagonists of the 1440 Mahabharata War - and as then two centuries later followed by the Aryans who then became dominant. The Brazen Race was thus primarily an alliance between Akhaian and Aryan - as Dharam and Kam - each with its own Principle Symbol Ritual - and here the Harri were the Akhaians - associated however with another Warrior Clan - the Chaldee - famously known for `Ur of the Chaldee' - as in the Jewish Myth declared the original home of Abraham and identified with Sumerian Ur (Woolley). However there was another Ur as given in Der Mitannibrief - the capital of Dasrath the Mitanni King. The Name itself simply means City - as another form of the Indian 1450 Pur and related Western words. The Chaldaeans in turn were a Caucasian Warrior clan - which in the Second Millennium BC went South through Persia and conquered and dominated the ancient land of Sumer - as beside the Akhaian Kassites of Mesopotamia - as Kretans. However another branch of the Chaldaeans went direct to and through Northern Mesopotamia - though the records are scanty. The r-l alternation shows a close ritual relationship between Harri and Chaldee (the same initial with different transliterations) - and Caucasian inscriptions have been found ofinvocations of the eponymous God Khaldi - in a language which the savants identify with the language of Der Mitannibrief (see Speiser) - and he is even addressed as Kuruni `Lord of the Kurus' - and then Chaldee and Harri - both as 1460 Kretans would simply be different `castes' within the same original Kretan Warrior Culture - they came together - the Chaldee as evidently the senior Kretans beside the Akhaian Harri - then followed two hundred years later by the Aryans of Kam - Kretan and Aryan as Dharam Kam. However there was still rivalry between the clans - and one of the central themes of Greek Myth and Literature is the ancient antagonism between Argos and Thebes - as simply reflecting the age-old conflict between the Aryans of Argos and the Kretans as dominant in Thebes - and here the dominance of the Harri - declaring the Akhaianized Culture as of the Hindu Aryans of India - with the High 1470 Symbol of the Lion-Sword as at Yazilikaya (a copy has been found in the area) - both as standard Akhaian Symbols - the Hittite open-air Temple at Yazilikaya thus presenting the Akhaianized Aryan Rite - while the Mitanni capital is distinguished as Ur-kesh `City of the Mane' (as standard Sanskrit - and also as Latin Caesar) - as in the Samsonian and Minoan Myths the Brahmanic Symbol of Salvation - here associated with the Lion and the Horse - as declaring Akhaian Kam - the Aryanized Akhaian Rite - the Biblical Land of Harran explicitly presenting the Harri - this Ur of Mitanni and Harri is correctly the original `Ur of the Chaldee' (the Jews as Kam ritually emphasizing the Aryans) - set in North Syria - showing the basis of the Persian choice of the language of Aram for administration of their Empire - 1480 the City being appropriately set further up from Kilikia of the Hypakhaians `Under Akhaians' - and not far from the later capital of Empire - Antioch. About 1600 BC Egypt was conquered and ruled by the Hyksos as `Shepherd' Kings - the Egyptians refused to acknowledge outsiders and little is known of these invaders - and while a strong foreign Semitic presence is seen in the story of the Jews and the Name Sinai - and ritually the Hyksos could certainly be Semitic - however the Name here - given the period - clearly declares the Warrior Aryans and Ares - Ritually descended from Semitic Shepherds - closely associated with the Semitic Culture of Peace - and giving - though only in the High Ritual - the 1490 Shepherd-King. Thus with the XVII Dynasty we read for the first time of the Pharoah - as most spectacularly Thutmose III - going outside the country - let alone leading the army in battle. Both these arose only with the Warrior clans - when the Principle of War was established in the Kingship - as in Ritual the Kings of Peace - as indeed a caste-rule of the Brahmans - were required to remain within their frontiers. Again the Mitanni Letter addressed to Pharoah personally - as a private communication - shows clearly that he spoke the Harri language. The Pharoah would not normally be expected to have any direct contact with outsiders - and the implication is that the Harri language was at least a private language of the Kings of the XVIII Dynasty. This should not be seen as a consequence of 1500 intermarriage with the Mitanni - but as evidence of their origin - arising in Egyptian Thebes (the Name declaring the great Kretan centre of Egypt as of Greece - the ritual basis of the transference of the Name) - the XVIII Dynasty clearly began with princes of the Akhaian Harri clan (as Dasrath himself) - evidently accepted as having adapted and allied themselves with the ancient Egyptian Moon-Priests - against the Hyksos - as the original Aryans (as in the Indian Myth the Aryan Arjun allied himself with the Brahmans against the Akhaian Kurus for the Mahabharata War) - however the Aryans being presented primarily as the Hittite Empire - the (K)hittite Name is associated with the (K)hatti - which is just a dialectic variation of the Punjabi Khattri - the Sanskrit Kshatriya - 1510 and thus in turn the (K)hitti as from the Sanskrit are the Lords of Kshiti as the Aryan Estate (the equivalent of the Spartan Kleros) - and again the City-State - and the distinction is primarily between the Aryan Warrior caste - representing Kam in the Hindu system - as declaring the Rajas earlier and Counts of the Aryan Culture - set at the centre - thus giving the Name of the capital Hattusas - and the Barons and Lords of Dharam as Kretans - Aryanized as Akhaians - set at the frontiers - and also the Rajas (and Lords) representing Arth and the later Culture of the Demi-god. While the Brazen Race represents the Warriors - Akhaians and Aryan supremacy - the 1520 Akhaian dominance - of Harri and the Akhaianized Rite - presents the succeeding Culture - established about the early Ffifteenth Ccentury BC - as the declaration of the Demi-god. There were two Demi-gods - both arising from Kretan Wall-Guards - and associated with the two great clans - as first the Kretan Demi-god (declared primarily with the Equinox) - as Kadmos Perseus Thyestes Aiakos Peleus Theseus - and the later Aryan Demi-god (of Libra) - as Rama Jason Agamemnon - and leading to the Divine Child of the Solstice - regularly presenting the Akhaianized Rite - of equal status with the Demi-god - the Iron Race of Hesiod - as represented by Titanic Herakles - Akhaian Akhilles - Karan. The Myrmidons of Akhilles have caused the savants problems - they are as Verma `Guard' - a Warrior caste of the Punjab - 1530 with a standard change as Borm- - then by consonant assimilation becoming Morm- - and then Myrm- (see the Lexicon - and the Mythic Name Marmax - First Suitor of Hippodameia) - thus the Myrmidons of Akhilles are simply `Sons of the Warrior Guard' - as indeed Kretans given the High Initiation of the Kretan Demi-god. The Name of the Kuru Divine Child Karan (Skt Karna) - Child of the Titanic Sun-God Savitar - as presented in the great Karneian Ritual of Sparta - simply shows the original form of the Greek Kronos - Titan and again - as declared by Hesiod - the High God of the Demi-gods - eponymous divine ancestor of the Kretans - combining and at once expressing the deep unity of the two greatest Cultures - forming the beginning and the end of the Bronze Age - and the variations of the Names - as 1540 given here - are less than the variations of a single Divine Name between the Greek dialects (see eg Zeus Apollo Hermes in the Lexicon). In the evolution of the Demi-god the Akhaianized Rite declared the supremacy of Akhaian over Aryan - as thus taking over the role of Ares - the High Aryan Sun-God and Creator - and Dasrath of Mitanni as of Ayodhya as Aryan Demi-god is at once correctly this High Aryan Sun-God of Dharam of the Akhaianized Rite (Aryan Chariot `rath' - Akhaian Ten `Das ) - and beside Akhaian Harri and the Aryans - Mitanni represents the High Kretan Guard of the Demi-god and Divine Child (as Spartans and Myrmidons of Greece) - and in turn in the Sacred Marriage of Golden Aphrodite - 1550 Ares represents again Akhaianized Ares of Dharam - and thus as Golden Aphrodite Nefretiti correctly represents the Akhaianized High Aryan Culture of Mitanni - as the religion she was urged by Vardhavira - the Poet of Der Mitannibrief - and in turn dedicated herself - to establish in Egypt - and this religious revolution was easier as to a large extent representing the original Akhaian Religion of these Theban princes of the XVIII Dynasty - as transformed for the higher Akhaianized Culture of the Demi-god - and as representing Kronos of the Demi-gods for Semitic Egypt - as a transformed Helios - Aton is the Sun-God of War representing the new Rite - this in turn led to counter-revolution by the traditional Moon-Priests of Peace of Egypt - they could not accept the new High Principle of War embodied in 1560 Aton - and the Demi-god and his Salvation - however though they Destroyed the XVIII Dynasty and the Pharonic Empire - the Priestly reaction could not prevail against the vast power of the new Salvation - and ulimately collapsed - and with the XIX Dynasty the Religion and Salvation of the Demi-god prevailed - as declared with the Symbol of the Ankh. The Akhaians and Aryans introduced the `Greek' language to the world - and this was followed by `Sanskrit'. The Brahmans assert that Sanskrit is the language of the Gods - they are mistaken - Sanskrit is the language of the Demi-gods. The `Indo-European' languages were - even from their origin - the language of the 1570 Warrior Cultures. When the new Principle and the new Ritual of the Titanic Culture established the military caste - as indeed in their own barracks set apart from the City - the Warrior-Priests decided at the same time to declare their distinct status with the invention - as based on the prevailing vocabulary - of a new grammar - distinguished - as indeed reflecting the new Ritual - by the introduction of case-endings - it is because the development of Language is essentially through grammar - acting on a common stream of words - that - though different mixes of language and local development through the centuries lead to rather different names of things - the deep words and the high Divine Names - as still preserving their meanings in Ritual - can remain unchanged through the 1580 different languages. Over the next thousand years as the Warriors developed - seized the power and became dominant - this new Language - as based primarily on Sumerian - evolved into the Indo-European languages - which with the Brazen Race burst upon the world early Second Millennium BC. While there was a deliberate tendency to `corrupt' to shorten unwieldy words - of the languages that still survive Sanskrit is closest to the high language as still preserving many of the original uncorrupted agglutinative forms - as indeed in itself - as the High God Kronos - declaring the unity of the two greatest Cultures of the Bronze Age - Titanic and of Demi-god - as the basis of the Brahmanic insistence that Sanskrit is the Language of the Gods. 1590 There is indeed a vast unity of Language Religion Culture covering the entire world of Antiquity - one stream of development that branched out giving the superficial diversity. Abraham is an example - a Brahman with a change of religion - again we read of the Hebrews as priestless in the desert kidnapping a passing Priest to administer to their spiritual needs. This simply expressed the unity of the Priesthood - through the succession of Cultures they were a caste apart - given a similar long hard deep training - based on essentially the same Principle*s Symbols Rituals - differing only in emphasis and detailed local application - they could understand each other even without a common language. The modern Western 1600 academic separation of the ancient Cultures into different `departments' (a sin most pronounced with the Western Classicists) is simply absurd - a hindrance rather than a help. The vast advantage of the Indo-European development was that it made the verbal grammar independent of the word-order (one of the enduring myths of Western chauvinism is that English and the Scandinavian languages are Indo-European - they are in fact primitive Neolithic languages with Indo-European accretions) - thus the word-order could be used to express a ritual `grammar' - as indeed the true criterion of a Work of Art - giving it depth power vastness - with specific 1610 meanings for words like Truth Beauty Universality. This grammar was most ancient but used in a cruder form - as the first person singular regularly declared the Resurrection and the God - and English simply cannot express it with the refinement of Greek and Sanskrit. This ritual grammar is indeed the basis of Der Mitannibrief - from the Akkadian ideograms there is sufficient hard evidence - and both Greek and Sanskrit Poets were following precisely the same rules - expressing with its elaborations and ramifications the vast development of this ritual grammar - which is indeed the key to the deep knowledge and tradition of the ancient Priests. 1620 Chapter 7 The Cosmic Ritual The ancient system was based primarily on the Triple Principle. I first discovered it when studying Der Mitannibrief - and it was some years later that I realised that this Principle was in fact ancient and well-known (though not to Western academics) - as indeed the fundamental Principle of Hinduism - Dharam Kam Arth - but the full expression has been forgotten. While any translation will limit them - the best is Law Radiance and the material Cosmic Symbol - as including in itself Law and Radiance - but they can equally be presented as Spirit Soul Body - or as Man Woman Child - or indeed Principle 1630 Symbol Ritual - the regular triadic order found in Culture presenting this Triple Principle as the basis of the organization. Thus the Mitanni genealogy presents in turn Sutarna of Dharam - Artama of Kam - Dasrath of Arth - as presenting at once the Three grtTT Cultures of Antiquity - Titanic (of Peace) - Semitic (Bowmen) and original Aryan (as Warriors) - and again Titanic Semitic Demi-god (Kretan as represented by the Aryanized Akhaians) - and the Christian Trinity presents in turn the Father as Dharam - Holy Spirit as Kam - Son as Arth - and again in the Judgment of Paris the Three Goddesses represent in turn Hera as Dharam - Athena as Kam - Aphrodite as Arth - as reflected in their offers of Wealth Victory (and Conquest) Marriage - as again representing the 1640 Three Cultures Titanic - Warrior as now Akhaian - Demi-god with Akhaianized Ares of Dharam - and even the ritual basis of the Roman Triumvirate - as Pompey `Lord of Conducting' as the Kretan-Akhaian Guard of Dharam Holding the City - Caesar `Lord of the Mane' as Aryanized Akhaian of Kam - Leading the Campaigns outside - giving the ritual significance of the Rubicon - Crassus the rich merchant (as beside Sutarna the Sun-God as Charioteer) representing the Titanic Culture and Arth - while the Three Plays of the Oresteia represent in turn Dharam in Corruption (presented with the Wall of Dharam) - Kam in Perversion (the Peak of Kam) - Arth in Perfection (Chariot of Arth) - indeed as the Three Ritual Fires presented on the Stage - as the basis of the scenes and sets of Three speeches 1650 (as of the Herald and Kasandra) - with a Fourth off-stage representing the Pyre of Destruction (in the West - the First Play) - and again Salvation of War (in the East - the Second Play) - and again a new Pyre of Salvation of Peace (established in the North - the Third Play). The Triple Six of course presents the full amount - originally single - declaring Kam as in Dharam for Salvation of the Semitic Bowmen - and in the development expressed in the Three Principles - Dharam Kam Arth - the Six applied to each - the Triple Six thus declaring the complete embodiment and Resurrection as Creator and Lord of Salvation of Bowmen - presented as Pan of the Goatskin in the Greek 1660 system - then transformed for the Semitic people by the Aryan Demi-god - wearing his Golden Fleece - so appropriate for Agamemnon - again with the establishment of Buddhism - as also representing Kam (beside the Brahmans of Dharam) - directly opposing the Semitic and Aryan Warriors - the Six was transformed for Peace - the Triple Six declaring the Resurrection of His Holiness the Dalai Lama - while for the Jews - as rejecting Salvation - the Triple Six of the Lord of Salvation - appropriately called the Number of the Beast - as the Golden Lamb - was anathema - the Beast being treated as some Monster - and thus associated with the Name of the Emperor Nero. Even Language was based on the Triple Principle - the Name was first established as Arth - the First Syllable as Dharam - Second as Kam - the Semitic 1670 languages - as developed over the millennia of the Chalcolithic Age - originally having two letters forming the root - but with the further development the Third Syllable was added as Arth - giving the present Three-letter Semitic root - the Name itself then representing Dharam - the Triple Principle being the basis of the organization of words - developing an original ritual grammar - later giving rise to a verbal grammar - and even the development of understanding - as in the Aiskhylian presentation of alternatives - and as in Buddhist teaching - presenting the full system as Dharam Kam Arth Death Salvation. However this Triple Principle is only an element of the Cosmic Principle - the 1680 Creation of the World. When in the earliest times the developing Society was being organized - the material world of Nature was just a jungle - there was no precedent - and so arose the Myth of the Creation of the World - the World being not the material world - as the rabbis and Christian priests have made out - but the spiritual world of the Temple as Religion and Society - the Creation of God. The Christians declare the Creation ex nihilo - the rabbis insist on `bringing order out of chaos' - both are confused - both are right - as presenting the obverse and reverse of the same coin. `Bringing order out of chaos' implies a principle of order - otherwise it becomes a meaningless change of chaos from chaos - and the principle cannot come from anywhere outside or it would only be 1690 a principle of chaos - like Liberal Democracy - so the principle of order - the Cosmic Principle as at once the Principle of Man - arose from within - and from the deepest level - ex nihilo - out of Nothing - Nirvana. Thus the Brahmans proclaim the fundamental message of the Upanishads - the identity of the Individual and the Universal - but this has not been understood. It is this Cosmic Principle that establishes and emphasizes this identification - of the organized material Creation with the organized human body - this Symbolic identity expressed most clearly in the famous Rigvedic Hymn to Purush and again in the Greek `Oracle of Sarapis' (Oxford Book of Greek Verse 482) - and thus in 1700 the Oresteia all references to the human body are at once references to the Creation - as the Wind is the Spirit - the most important being the Liver as the Pyre - representing the Kretan Guards and Dharam (so the organ used in augury) - the Eye - as the Flame giving Light - and representing the Semitic Bowmen - and the Flame of Salvation as Kam (and so as the supreme organ for the Arabs) - and the Heart representing the Glow of the High Ritual and Aryans of Arth. I recall a thesis that the Mahabharata had nothing to do with history - the entire epic was just a vast allegory of the development of the human spirit - a Symbolic statement of the spiritual struggle of Man - this was fundamentally right - as applying also to the Greek Epics - and even the Oresteia - the Cosmic Principle 1710 was used for the selection and organization of the historical facts - the Poet - transforming these facts to present Society and Ritual - could thus with them present at once the individual and the spirit - Art is to take the reality and transform it into the Reality the spiritual - and this artistic principle - as expressed in the Orphic Principle is found throughout the Greek literature. The Cosmic Principle is expressed in the Cosmic Ritual - as thus beginning with Nirvana - presented as Queen of Night - and the Father Rising as the One Alone - then in the High Ritual the emanation of the Second - the Holy Wisdom of Peace in the form of Woman - and as there is no other she is necessarily his Daughter. 1720 Thus comes the High Marriage with the Ritual Birth of the Son. The Holy Wisdom is invested in the Son - and he descends to earth as the Creator - as a most ancient Ritual - established first with the new Principle of War by the Titanic Culture - as thus appropriate for the Christians. The schism in the Christian Church has arisen simply through ignorance of the High Ritual - the Holy Wisdom comes only from the Father - but in the High Ritual is invested in the Son - and then as from the Father through the Son expressed in the Ritual of Creation for all mankind. In this Ritual the Son achieves his Nirvana - and then Rising as the Creator - this transformation regularly establishing the Creator as Arth - however through the different Cultures the Son himself could originally express 1730 any of the Three Principles - giving the Creator of Dharam as Christ Hermes Pelops - or of Kam as Ares - or Arth as Dionysos. The Creation itself expressesd the Triple Principle - with the establishment in turn of Dharam and Kam - followed by the Sacred Marriage establishing Arth - first as a Unity - then in the third level (eg Aga 1476 - `triple-layered' - presented as Roof Stage Orchestra) - with the different caste High Priests - as the World of the people - the Creation in Diversity - as Intricate things (Aga 935). This World is then guided to its Goal of Death as the Death of Nirvana - the basis of Coomaraswamy's famous statement `Building the Temple is at once 1740 Destroying the Temple - and the Building of the Temple is complete only with the complete Destruction of the Temple' - and from the Nirvana there comes again Resurrection and Salvation as a Rebirth. This cycle is the basis of the famous statement of Alkmaion - as has completely baffled the sprofessors - `Men Die for this reason - that they are not able to Join the Beginning with the End' - the Beginning is Nirvana and Birth - and the End is Death - and the Join - presented explicitly with the Omen in the Oresteia - gives the Death of Nirvana and Birth again - as the Resurrection of God - and Salvation for a select few. This Cosmic Principle as the organizing principle of the Society as a whole was 1750 then used as the organizing principle again and again down through layer and layer to the very detail - there was no other organizing principle available. This Cosmic Principle is at once the Orphic Principle of the Creation of the World that is the basis of a Work of Art - thus as following the same principle it says in the Upanishads the Artist Creating a Work of Art acts as the God Creating the World - and when Demodokos sings `Beginning from the God' (Od 8.499) he is organizing the Song correctly in accordance with the Orphic Principle as a Work of Art - as indeed the translated Mitanni phrase - its Four words presenting in turn with strict ritual correctness God Dharam Kam Arth. And thus - within the Orphic Principle - Aiskhylos for his Trilogy established a secondary organizing 1760 principle as the Seed - for the Tragedy as a whole - and again down through layer and layer to the very detail. The greatest handicap of the Classicists in understanding the Greek Religion and meaning of ritual words is their ignorance of the principle of Nirvana - the Absolute Principle of Hinduism. After Agamemnon crosses the Stage the Chorus sings the compound word `self-witness' (Aga 989). The savants are baffled - what is the point of `self'? The Lexicon gives `eye-witness' - and the Loeb translates `need no other witness' - do they help? However Religion and Ritual clarifies it - the `self' is precisely the Self (atma) of Indian Mysticism - the 1770 deepest element in the individual - associated with Nirvana - and in general for the Greeks Salvation - the ambiguity related to the meaning of Nirvana - for the Buddhists Death - for the Hindus Salvation - thus the Wind Vayu - as Zephyr - as the Spirit - is presented as the Self of the Gods (RV X 168.4) - declaring the Resurrection of Dharam - the Christians have had to reinvent the term in phrases like `Find yourself'. Thus the translation is correctly either `the Self is the Witness' (cf Eum 798) - or `I am the Witness of the Self' - the reference being to Agamemnon as the Risen God - and again in his Nirvana - representing the representing the Travelling Back (Nostos) - as from Life to Death - and again for the Chorus themselves in their White Goatskins - declaring their Salvation. 1780 What then is the function of the Witness? In the Third Play the Chorus (Eum 318) declare themselves the Witnesses - as clearly an inherent part of the Ritual of Salvation - and of the Risen God. What then do they witness? The Funeral Ritual and Nirvana. They give their function as carrying out the Corpse (Eum 372ff) - and they supervise the Pyre-Rite - then after this Pyre-Rite the Ashes are cast into the Blue River - as River Ocean - the River of Death and again of Life - thus is declared the Nirvana - and then through the Keening - the Calling Back - Salvation may follow - Nirvana is a necessary precondition - but not in itself itself sufficient for Salvation - these are only the Witnesses - the decision is 1790 with the `Judges of the Dead'. The Greek (Eum 798) presents this Ritual of Salvation in strict order - the Travelling Back to Nirvana - the Self-Witness - the Rising again - and it is this scheme that requires the final participle - as otherwise redundant (with the grotesque identification of the Chorus representing Salvation and the Witnesses of Nirvana). So also the Ritual of the Risen God - as the Ritual of Golgotha - is primarily to give the declaration of Nirvana - as the necessary precondition before the God can Rise - only He who has been there and back can know the Way. Other Burials - as the Earth-Burial of the Semites - may declare Nirvana - represented indeed by the Black Stone as the Meteorite in the Cave of Mecca and when Yahweh tells the Jews to worship him 1800 as the natural rock in the desert - but there are no Witnesses - no Salvation - the Jews and Muslims indeed worship the Lord of Nirvana (declared by the Jew when he prays facing the Wailing Wall) - while graven images represent the Resurrected God - those who worship before Idols follow the Way of Salvation. Salvation belongs only to man - as simply a limited version of the Resurrection - the Ritual of the Risen God. It was first establisshed at the beginning of the Bronze Age with the Principle of War - as the prerogative only of the Warriors - as granted in exchange for their readiness - indeed as an incentive - to lay down their lives in defence of the City - the sacrifice of life in this world 1810 being rewarded with Life in the Hereafter - and Salvation being set with the Guards at the end of the ritual cycle - so the new `Indo-European' languages were established with the emphasis - as giving a new life - at the end of the word - as found in both declension and conjugation - and indeed throughout the new grammar. Thus also Telos as the Ritual of Salvation gives Teleute `last' - as a declaration that there is no finality - the last is only the precursor of a new Rising. This ancient idea of Salvation is still seen in Islam as guaranteed only to those killed in Battle. It was the Demi-god who extended the Ritual to include the people of Peace - thus the Christians correctly worship the Father as both God and Man - declaring the Demi-god - though as arising in the Semitic 1820 Culture - and with the Wine and emphasis on the Soul - the Christian Father is correctly the High Semitic Sun-God - identified with the High Aryan Sun-God of Kam as Priam - indeed presented with Agamemnon in the Play - and as Erekhtheus. While the original Warrior Ritual was the Pyre - as in Hinduism and Sikhism - the true religions of Salvation in the world today - originally established by the Demi-gods Rama and Karan - Salvation was given to the Semitic people - as presented with the Christians today - still using the Semitic Earth-Burial - which correctly declares Death without Salvation. The original Warriors were the Guards as of the Principle of Dharam - represented by the Kuru-Kretans - in turn the Semitic Warriors of Kam took the principle from the Guards to encourage the 1830 attack - but with the different ritual of `Smash Grab and Run' - they had no time (or desire) to collect dead bodies - and these were just abandoned to the Dogs - which became the Ritual of Salvation of Kam - as the original form of the Semitic Warrior Rite - leading to the Aryan Ritual of bodies left to the Birds - as seen today with the Zoroastrians. Thus when Akhilles says he will leave Hector to the Dogs and the Birds it is not some savage act of vengeance - but the correct ritual of Salvation for an Aryan Warrior slain in Battle - but Priam would have none of it - he ransomed the body to give it the higher ritual of the Risen God - as an Apollo - so that divine 1840 honours could be paid - the distinction being primarily that Salvation was of the Individual - Divine Resurrection of the Universal - the God was at once the Creator - the Death of the God being the Destruction of his Creation - with Barbarism for the people - thus the Divine Burial was associated with Symbolic Destruction of his World - as in the Cremation of Patroklos - and as regularly seen in ancient rituals - as in the Royal Graves of Ur. This Divine Resurrection is seen explicitly in Late Bronze Age Egypt - with the Pyramid - once the prerogative of the Pharoah - made available to his highest officials. Equally Polyneikes as from Aryan Argos is apparently left to the Dogs and Birds for his Salvation - but Antigone would have none of it - giving the higher ritual of the 1850 Risen God. The Classicists have completely missed the point of the Sophoklean play. O Antigone - such sweet sad songs you sing - what a beautiful young girl you must be! - but the professors do not realise that you in fact represent an ugly old hag! - a hooked nose and conical hat gives a better idea of Antigone - she performs the Ritual of Divine Resurrection - she is a Witch! The professors have got it upside down - she represents not a young girl in love lamenting her death - but an old woman near death yearning to be a young girl in love - the confrontation is not between a young girl (a St Joan!) and an old grey-bearded Kreon - but as between an old woman and a young vigorous High Aryan Sun-God - Kreon is the Risen Polyneikes - or Eteokles? - we do not know. The order of the 1860 first line (Soph Ant 450) clearly shows the position - Antigone gives herself precedence over Zeus - who then has the honour before Zeus? - Aiskhylos gives the answer - Death (Eum 640) - Antigone `Initiating Against' is as Moira - the Semitic Demeter-Themis - ancient Queen of Death and Resurrection - emphasized by the series of negatives (Soph Ant 450-7) - and being immured is the correct ritual - the Cave represents the Anaktoron - inner chamber of the Megaron as at Eleusis - She must be Destroyed and transformed as Klytemnestra in the Oresteia - before Rising again as `the young girl in love' - as `Golden-Haired Demeter' representing the Daktylic Rite as the Salvation of Dharam of the Demi-god - thus in the Line set strictly between the Negative of Nirvana and Zeus as Arth - as 1870 the Marriage of Salvation of Ismene-Persephone with Kreon-Eteokles presenting Hades that side - as declaring the new Rite of Arth of the Aryan Demi-god - she will indeed have a Marriage with Death - but this side as a Marriage with the Captain of the Gate and Lord of Salvation represented by Haimon `Lord of Blood' - for Destruction for Nirvana as transformed for Daktylic Salvation - and her Songs are as of the Sirens the Songs of Salvation. The different Salvations were related in the Greek Myth to the three Judges of the Dead sitting by the Gate - Rhadamanthys for the old Titanic Salvation of Dharam of the Wall-Guards and as given to the people - Aiakos for the Akhaian Rite of the Warriors as of Kam - and Minos for the Heraklean Salvation and Divine Resurrection as Arth - while 1880 the Aryan Salvation of Kam was ultimately rejected in Classical Greece as in Persia and India. There is a distinction seen in the structures of the Antigone and the Agamemnon - Kreon enters first and Antigone follows - while Klytemnestra enters before Agamemnon - they represent different rituals. In both cases the Principle is followed - the first is Dharam and the second Kam - as Agamemnon as Ares of Kam represents the Aryans - so Kreon as Aryanized Akhaian is Ares of Dharam representing the Guards - and this merely declares the different Cultures of the Poets - Eleusinian Aiskhylos expresses the Ritual of the Demi-god and the 1890 first element of his Name Ais- `Law of Bronze' declares the Kretan Law - in his his Seven Eteokles represents in fact the Aryan Divine Child who will Rise as Hades and so there is no Kreon - while Kolonian Sophokles expresses the Titanic Rite of Peace - transformed for the Heraklean Rite - with Sopho- as Dharam with -kles `Kretan Glory of Salvation' - a standard ending of the Heraklean Daktylic caste (it is no accident that the first two consonants present the place Name - the relation with Invoking simply presenting the Daktylic Ear of Salvation). Again Antigone - rejecting Aryan Salvation for Divine Resurrection - performs an ancient Kretan Rite - associated with the Titanic Culture - and expressing 1900 the Principle of Peace represented by her - and thus ritually appropriate to Defeat. Thus on both sides there is the Risen God - who then appears on the stage - Polyneikes as the Kretan Stranger as Kreon and Demi-god - or Eteokles as Risen High Aryan Sun-God of Peace and Aryan Demi-god? - the Chorus (Ant 156) says it is Kreon but this is only the role - both in turn as Kretan and Aryan will perform the Rite. Is this in some perverted form the High Ritual of the Demi-god as Kretan Kadmos - Antigone as Demeter the Queen of Earth playing her ancient role as Goddess of Wisdom - or as transformed for Salvation - or is it the High Ritual of Peace as of the High Aryan Sun-God - with Antigone - who is not invited - gate-crashing to take the place of the expected Bride - the High Goddess 1910 of Kam Ismene - or as herself transformed as the High Goddess of Dharam? In the half-light of this Second day of the Ritual (Ant 456 is literal) - the Risen One not yet given the Symbols of Arth for the High Marriage and appearance in Majesty - it is impossible to tell - and it is the skill of the Poet that the answer is indeed Both. And again in the Trilogy we can ask - who is entering as High Sun-God - Agamemnon after the Victory of War now acting in Peace - or spirit of Priam - High Lord of Peace - whether going in Defeat to Hades - with the Herald-Hermes properly preceding - as leading the Way to Salvation and Resurrection - or Risen as in Victory for some perverted Aryan High Ritual? - again the answer is All Three. This is indeed one of the rules of Tragedy and the ancient Greek Poetry - 1920 as of a Work of Art - the words are carefully chosen so that all the different Rituals - of the different Cultures presented by the Poet - are declared at once - and this is possible only through the fundamental basis of all the Rituals - giving the unity of all the Cultures - the Cosmic Principle. The Cosmic Ritual was originally performed by the High God of Peace as Father - and the Goddess of Holy Wisdom as Daughter and Bride of the Father - the Child as the Creator of Peace - thus there were two Creators and two Rituals - with also a Creator of War as an Anti-Creator - Initiating and establishing the Warriors outside the City - thus again there was the inherent tendency to 1930 identify the two Creators. When the Warrior Culture seized the power - it simply modified the Ritual - the Creation was still a Creation of Peace - War was kept outside the Walls (eg Eum 864) - thus in the Second Millennium BC the Warrior - first as Pelops as the Akhaian in the Ritual of Creation - then as Demi-god in the High Ritual - came as Stranger - Destroying the God of Peace - and establishing the Principle of War - and again the High Principle of War - seizing the Bride - and transforming her to represent the newCulture - and completing the new Ritual of War and Peace - as indeed the Ritual implicit in the Mitanni translation - the Towards of the Demi-god declaring the Destruction of the Pharoah as the High God of Peace - for the establishment of the new Rite. The Stranger was thus always a 1940 Warrior - and as taking the place of the Father he became Antipater - as strictly a title of the Demi-god. Thus Pelops first Destroys Oinomaos the Aryanized Semitic Creator - the Destruction of his Chariot (Aryan - as regularly in the Greek Myth the Symbol of the Aryan Creation) - as at once the Destruction of his Creation - and his Resurrection - then the Destruction of Peace - with a Kick - of his Charioteer as the Titanic Sun-God-Creator of Peace - giving the Death of Nirvana - completing the Annihilation - and allowing the transformation - establishing the Akhaians and new Salvation - the Bride Hippodameia `Lady of Defeat of the Horse' as the Goddess of Akhaian Salvation - for the new Warrior Ritual of Creation. 1950 While the savants know and speak of the Ritual of Creation - which they prefer to call the New-Year Ritual - it has escaped them that there is a corresponding Ritual of Destruction - precisely as the power is unleashed - so must it be destroyed - as the King `who Slew the Slayer and shall himself be Slain' - or the Death will not be ritually correct - the power will still remain and react - with vast consequences for the Creation to come. In general for the Society - the Destruction was simply the reverse of the Creation - the final act being being the Destruction of the Holy Wisdom - with which the God went at once into his Nirvana. The Greek Myth sometimes presents this as a Binding - as related to the myth of the God of Winds Aiolos - holding the Winds as Spirits in a Bag - 1960 and Yama the Indian God of Death carrying off the spirit of the Dead Sun-God (Myth of Savitar) in a Bag - the Bag a string-bag as of Rope - as Hanging and Strangling with a Cord - and also as holding the Spirit-Wind - as a Symbol of Death - the Binding simply representing this holding of the spirit in a string-bag - and then the Release (Eum 645) is the Resurrection.