Response by Robert G. Bauval to Interview with Ralph Ellis and the posting of Paolo Piaggio on Orion's belt and Giza:

1. Ralph (Roger) Ellis:

(.......)

2. Paolo Piaggio:

Now here is someone who went through a lot of trouble and effort to provide the public with a much-needed analysis of the Orion-Giza correlation debate. Well done Paolo. On the positive side, Paolo's publication shows again how Orion's belt in 10,500 BC cannot possibly be seen as other than a SOUTHERN constellation with the Milky Way to its left (east), just like the Giza layout when looking south. I'm not so sure about the data on declinations and RA given by SKYCHART III Version 3.1, and I suspect that proper motion may not have been accounted for. But the results are very close to those found by the Rigorous Method, and not worth splitting hairs over.

On the negative side, Paolo's very detailed 'scientific' analysis merely highlights the problem, and absurdity, of this type of analysis when dealing with religious monuments and symbols. The designers of Giza, as I have argued in Secret Chamber, were not 'scientists' as we would define them today, but rather were astronomer-priests, high-initiates into esoteric and magical lore who saw in their design not a 'scientific instrument' but rather the expression of powerful ideologies related to the afterlife of the soul, the journey of the soul to the Duat-star world and so forth. The nearest modern equivalent would be, I think, Leonardo da Vinci or Giordano Bruno and such like alchemist-artists cum 'scientists' who combined a powerful intuitive mind with the process of scientific thinking. It would be absurd to take the Mona Lisa portrait, for example, and conduct an analysis of its dimensions and proportions in relation to (if they could be found) the actual bone structure of the woman Mona Lisa on a point by point basis like Paolo Piaggio did for the Orion-Giza correlation. If we applied this form of reasoning, then we would conclude that all artwork, no matter how realistic and accurate they may be, are not DELIBERATE representations of their subjects. This is utter nonsense. It is missing the point entirely. It is like asking a surgeon to find the 'soul' by dissecting a human body and having them conclude that the soul does not exist. When will some people realise that 'science' and pure empirical methods cannot --and will never be able to-- solve the deeper questions of existence but merely labour us with more 'data' to consider. Certainly, there is a form of 'science' in the design and layout of the Giza monuments. But it is a 'sacred science' and must be recognised for what it is. Showing with computer analysis that there was a variance between the apparent layout of Orion's belt and the layout of the Pyramids does not 'prove' that no correlation was intended but merely proves that with computers we are capable of more precise calculations than naked-eye observations and measurements.

The likes of Paolo Pioggio, Anthony Fairall and Ed Krupp typify the serious dilemma we face in this day and age by the dissassociation of artistic and intuitive thinking from empirical, rationalistic ('scientific') thinking. We are incapable of merging both anymore. I call this 'merged' way of thinking Magical Thinking. We are magical entities living in a magical universe. We are not --repeat NOT-- scientific creatures living in a purely rationalistic universe. Our objective is to gain that special knowledge that the ancients called 'Gnosis' through the merger of the intuitive-spiritual thinking and the rational form of thinking. Only then can we understand the meaning of existence, the purpose of the soul and find our paths towards the divine. Perhaps this is what the ancients who built the Pyramids have to teach us from the legacy they have left. If all this scientific analysis (and that's all it is) is to demonstrate that theoretical mathematics shows a 2 percent margin of error between the angles formed by Orion's belt and the three Giza pyramids, then I agree to this. But it does not change my conviction of a deliberate correlation between the two, and that 'coincidence' must be discounted. But most of all, I believe that such a correlation is the key that guides us, through a form of powerful initiatory knowledge of sky-ground ideologies, to the date of c. 10,500 BC. What 'knowledge' and through which system of initiation? Well, read Secret Chamber for some cues...

Robert

Back to the Daily Grail