APPENDIX 2

MEANINGS CONTAINED IN GLYPHS

R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz points out that the images used to write Egyptian hieroglyphs do not compose an alphabet.1 Much like Hebrew, according to d’Olivet, while glyphs may use illustrations of concrete objects, their combinations in words can evoke a wide range of abstract ideas.2 A modern reader barely notices when it is necessary to search the context of a word to be sure of its meaning, such as the word base, which can mean a foundation, a starting point, or a military installation, along with many additional meanings in science, architecture, and politics. It is not common for a modern reader to ponder the meaning of a letter in a word, but in reaching back to the first written languages in which the myths were recorded, it is important to consider the possible meanings that the letters have, as well as their relationships within the words.

In Egyptian, since the Old Kingdom, words, or collections of glyphs, often require the inclusion of the “determinative” at the ends of most nouns. They guide the reader through the possible meanings, but especially to the cabalistic symbolism of qualities and images that help us choose what the hieroglyphs are intended to convey. That is, the sacred glyphs encompass a breadth of functions and invoke a sense of discrimination in us, rather than maintain a narrow, fixed meaning intended to exclude other meanings, as we find in the alphabetically based words of modern Indo-European languages. In fact, the hieroglyphic system R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz describes seems to be the opposite of our use of the alphabet.

Indo-European languages use words that, in written form, consist of “made-up” letters that are abstract signs. These signs are meaningless images, but in our early education we learn to use them phonetically in combinations that evoke specific concepts or particular objects; we are barely aware of their abstract nature. Gradually, through education, we find other meanings and qualities by using modifying words and additional explanations, enabling us to communicate more exactly, albeit not without some remaining ambiguity. This broadening is required to overcome the restriction of meaning built into the alphabetic foundation of our modern Indo-European languages.

R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz believes that the education of the pharaohs, priests, and other leaders of the society in the use of hieroglyphs directly led to a flourishing of “sacred writing,” which invoked the combination of images reflecting complex concepts. He believes that, as explicitly intended, education led to a superior capacity to understand and communicate the traditional, sacred knowledge, one that is available to us today only by specific efforts of study. Proof of this would seem to require that we actually learn the use of a nonalphabetic language, like the one that the Egyptians protected so carefully for thousands of years. Otherwise, we can only admire the possibility offered by his most interesting diagnosis of how to find real meaning, even while admitting that our own comprehension of the language depends on turning the hieroglyphs into their phonetic equivalents and translating them into English.

Even through translation it is possible to detect a remarkable sensitivity in the writings of the ancients. Although we cannot claim to adequately assess all of R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz’s theories about ancient Egyptian heiroglyphs, we have been able to recognize the subtlety of meaning in their use. This also seems evident in Sumerian cuneiform and Hebrew lettering. Through comparison of the various versions of the myths, their language of origin, and a detailed look at some of the glyphs, it is evident that the glyphs contain knowledge of complex concepts and their interactions. They contain important pieces of information that can be used to describe esoteric, nonphysical concepts such as higher consciousness.