Quantcast
Channel: Shadows of the Sun
Viewing all 137 articles
Browse latest View live

Banebdjedet : Q & A

0
0
Banebdjedet, here syncretized with the already-syncretic deity Ptah-Tatenen, in the tomb of Montu-her-Khepsef (KV19). Image source.

A mural from the 20th Dynasty tomb of Prince Montu-her-Khepeshef, KV19. He was a son of Ramses IX. Banebdjedet, here syncretized with the already syncretic deity Ptah-Tatenen and bearing the ankh-djed-wās scepter, is being offered food, flowers, and libations from a ram-headed ewer by the Prince. Image source.

“Revered before Banebdjedet, the ‘Chamberlain-Priest,’ He Who Separates the Two Gods, Prophet of the Ram, Hatmehyt and the Greater and Lesser Enneads, the Chief W’ab Priest who knows his duty . . . Nes-usert, called Wahibre . . . he says: “O Ram of [Ra], Ram of the Great One, Ram of Shu, Ram of Earth! Four faces on a single neck! O entombed rams within the Mansion of the Rams! (Ye for Whom) the Nile emerges from the cavern of Yebu that the fields may sparkle with ‘clothing’ (of herbage), that breasts may foal in timely season, their sustenance being on earth, and that Ra rises and Atum sets, so as not to impair Their offerings day and night! Remember Ye my name specifically when offering is made to Your kus! Grant Ye me an offering at the moment of requital, given at Your volition, (and also) a good burial after old age. May I go about as I wish without being blocked at the gates . . . O Ye that go upstream and downstream to see the Great Rams, thank God for this (my) statue.”

– M. Burchardt, “Ein saitischer Statuensockel in Stockholm,”
ZÄS 47 (1910), 111-15

I was recently asked by a reader about the Egyptian God Banebdjedet. With the querent’s permission, I am publishing the response to my blog, since it shall be rather lengthy.

“I noticed you talking about Banebdjedet in some of your posts. What does Banebdjedet’s name mean, and how did the Egyptians write it? Isn’t the -et ending female, in terms of conjugation? Why does a God have a female ending to His name? What was Banebdjedet’s place in Ancient Egyptian mythology? How is He represented?”

It should be disclaimed that I am no reigning expert on Ancient Egyptian languages, and I am not a degreed Egyptologist. The only individuals I know on any basis who are much more helpful in this area, wielding more academic experience and authority than I, are Jennifer Irytsabu/Bezenwepwy and Reverend Tamara L. Siuda. Reverend Siuda is the leader of the Kemetic Orthodox Temple and a degreed Egyptologist — for those of you reading who don’t know already — and you may email her at nisut@kemet.org. Keep in mind that they are both very busy women, and may not reply to your questions immediately. However, they can provide alternative explanations to mine and/or correct any potential misinformation I might mistakenly give, particularly in regard to Egyptian languages.

This having been said, I will answer questions regarding the linguistic elements to the best of my ability.
_____________________________________________________________________

BANEBDJEDET’S NAME banebdjet-name

Banebdjedet’s name means “Ram Lord of Djedet / the Abiding Place.”

BA – Historian and Archaeologist Donald B. Redford explains to us that the word ba is a double-entendre. The Ancient Egyptians were exceedingly fond of puns, believing that homophony in language was no meaningless coincidence. They crop up frequently in both religious and informal contexts. Ba means “ram” as well as “spiritual manifestation.” (Redford, 134) The plural of this word is bau. Ba can be represented either by the Ovis longipes ram hieroglyph; or by a human-headed falcon. In the case of the Divine ba, it can be signified by the Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis stork — not to be confused with the Bennu heron/”phoenix,” Ardea cinerea — represented as a monogrammatic group of three birds. All depending, of course, upon textual context. (Wilkinson, 61, 99)

To provide further illustration, a corresponding pun is that of ka. Ka means both “bull,” which is represented by a bull hieroglyph, and “vital essence,” which is represented by two arms raised at ninety-degree angles. This complicated vital essence is another component of the Egyptian concept of the soul of both humans and deities. (Wilkinson, 49, 57)

NEB Neb is the word for “Lord.” Given the feminine -et ending, this creates “Lady” or “Mistress.” Hence the name of one of Set’s wives, Nebet-Het, called Nephthys by the Hellenes, which means “Mistress [of the] House.”

DJEDET – Djedet is the Egyptian name for the city, formerly called ‘Anepat during the earlier years of its extensive history, home to Banebdjedet’s cult. When the Neo-Assyrians under Esarhaddon gained control of the Delta region around 671 BCE, long before the coming of the Hellenes, they renamed this city Assur-massu-urappish, or “Aššur Has Expanded His Land.” (Redford, 120 – 2) The Hellenes would later call this city Mendes during the 300s BCE and later.

Concerning the feminine -et ending of the name of the city, and of Banebdjedet’s name, Djedet is simply the name of the city, referring to “The Abiding Place,” and thus its feminine -et ending has no reflection on the gender of its tutelary Ram God. This having been said, Tamara L. Siuda tends to spell Djedet’s Ram God’s name as “Banebdjed,” and Redford oscillates between the two spellings. Other scholars seem to favor the “Banebdjedet” spelling.

The Djed pillar. Art by Jeff Dahl.

Art by Jeff Dahl.

The Djed is a symbol of strength and resurrection, and makes up part of the city’s and its God’s name. This symbol is usually associated with Osiris, especially during later periods of Egyptian history, though not exclusive to Him. It is thought to be a stylized sheaf of corn, or bundle of reeds. (Note how the two Djed pillars in Banebdjedet’s name resemble the double-pylon symbol thought to depict the Gates of the West, the boundary between this world and the Otherworld.) Banebdjedet — like Osiris, with Whom Banebdjedet was eventually identified — was very much involved in funerary religion and the successful transfiguration of souls into imperishable Akhu. ____________________________________________________________________

BANEBDJEDET’S IMAGE

Banebdjedet is depicted in a number of ways within Ancient Egyptian art.

He is at times represented in full ram form:

A relief of an Ovis longipes ram from Djedet (Mendes). Image source.

A relief of an Ovis longipes ram from Djedet (Mendes). Image source.

Or as a ram-headed man donning the Atef crown, making Him easy to confuse at first glance with another popular Ram God, Herishef:

Mendesian donation stela depicting the Ram God Benebdjedet and His wife Hatmehyt. Photo courtesy of One Dead President.

Mendesian donation stela depicting the Ram God Benebdjedet and His wife Hatmehyt, among other figures. Photo courtesy of One Dead President.

He was sometimes shown in the guise of Ptah-Tatenen, as pictured in the image of the KV19 mural at the beginning of this article.

In other depictions, He has a much different face. Four of them, in fact. He could appear as a four-headed ram, or a man with four ram heads, with or without the Atef crown:

Amulet representing a ram with four heads, representing the God Banebdjedet. Suspension ring in gold. Rock crystal and gold. Egypt, Late Period, or Phoenician, Egyptian influence.

A rock crystal amulet with gold suspension ring depicting a ram with four heads, representing the God Banebdjedet. Egypt, Late Period; or Phoenician, Egyptian influence. PBA.

A painting of Banebdjedet by Jean-Francois Champollion.

A 19th century painting of Banebdjedet in anthropomorphic form by Jean-François Champollion.

____________________________________________________________________

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF DJEDET
AND THE ROLES OF ITS RAM GOD

The first documented inhabitants of the area, at the dawn of recorded history in the Northern Delta region, were West Semitic-speaking wanderers from the Levant. They emigrated from Asia to a place they called Laẖaẖta, “The Watery Place.” The papyrus marshes of this “Watery Place,” while fertile, were not suitable for settlement. They established a settlement called ‘Anepat, “The Place of Greenness,” further North beyond the papyrus marshes, on a piece of land between two tributaries. In time, ‘Anepat and its neighboring towns to the Southwest — ‘Ummah, “Clan-Town,” and ‘Aneze, “The Pasturage” — which began as humble fishing, fowling, and shepherding communities, would grow to become one of the most important economic centers of the Egyptian Empire. (Redford, 1 – 4) The area would suffer tragedy after devastating tragedy, particularly under Neo-Assyrian and Persian rule, but we won’t be focusing on those here.

Faience Hatmehyt statue, KHM Egyptian Collection.

Faience Hatmehyt statuette, KHM Egyptian Collection. She is the tutelary Goddess of Djedet/Mendes. Note the catfish atop Her multi-cobra headdress.

The ram was a sacred animal to the people who settled this region, being nomadic herders in origin. The ram would continue to be held in high regard by their descendents, who would come to call their burgeoning city Djedet. The people of this land, having also taken to fishing to sustain themselves in this “Watery Place,” also held particular species of Schilbid catfish sacred. It is the symbol of Banebdjedet’s wife Hatmehyt, “Foremost of the Fishes,” a primordial Goddess of the Inundation later syncretized with Aset. Her catfish symbol, rather than a ram, makes up part of the standard of the Djedetian/Mendesian Nome.

Banebdjedet was not the first nor only God of the region. From the neighborhoods of “The Pasturage” and Djedu/Busiris came ‘Anzata, a Shepherd-God depicted as an upright man wearing two tall, curved feather plumes upon His head, bearing a long staff and flail. The Shepherd and the Ram were, in large part, representative of the people’s livelihood. We should take care to prevent ourselves from thinking of Early Egyptians as primitive and backward simply for endowing their beloved deities with the symbols and roles with which they were best acquainted.

‘Anzata was the people’s protector and provider in life, and His Godly role was paralleled in the tribal hierarchies of the Early Delta: just as ‘Anzata shepherded His mortal flock, the clan Chief shepherded his small community and led it to prosperity and fulfillment. (Redford, 33) This was certainly not ‘Anzata’s only role, but it was one of His more prevalent ones. He also had male virility as well as funerary associations. For these qualities, ‘Anzata was absorbed by Osiris’ nascent cult during what Redford refers to as “the Pyramid Age.” (32)

Male virility and funerary associations, as we shall see, go hand-in-hand. It was required that the deceased be reborn in the Duat in much the same manner the deceased had been born into the tangible world. The imagery accompanying the descriptions of this rebirth of the soul in the Duat are highly sexual, but not inappropriately sexual by Ancient Egyptian standards. The penis, testicles, and their semen, rather than the uterus (viewed as a vessel which receives and incubates the masculine creative essence), were believed to house primary creative power in Ancient Egyptian thought: hence myths about monads like Atum ejaculating beings into existence as an act of Spontaneous Creation, insinuating an Ancient belief in homunculi. Indeed, creatrixes such as Nit/Neith manifest penises in Their Creation myths so that They might bring Creation into being. And there are epithets praising the strength of a God’s phallus and the potency of His sperm that are common to countless male Egyptian deities. Consequently, the Ram, as a masculine, sexual, and vivacious being, was a fitting symbol for Gods responsible for the rebirth of a person’s soul in the Otherworld. Thus we see in beatifications of the deceased such impassioned words as “ . . . my ba is mine, He through Whom I ejaculate; the Abiding Place belongs to me: what I say is what will be done!” (Redford, 35)

The Ram was a protector and provider of a different sort than ‘Anzata, and much more complex. Banebdjedet was, and is, multiversal. It was Banebdjedet’s multiversality  that allowed His cult to survive with His face and His identity largely intact through the ensuing centuries, with the coming and going of various influential cults, and the transition from Hard Polytheist theological interpretations in State religion to Monistic-Henotheistic ones.

As the ba, the Ram and the mutable spiritual manifestation, the Ram Lord was the quintessential soul, the Shepherd of those who had since passed into the realm of the Duat, and the Ram Lord Who fathered the deceased into the Otherworld. This Ram was to the Ancient Egyptians — particularly those of the Middle and New Kingdom Periods — a visible and tangible conduit for invisible and intangible elements, the most liminal of beings, one Who straddles the boundary between the material world and the Otherworld, between Yesterday and Tomorrow.

The ram-headed Ba of Ra, flanked by Aset and Nebet-Het. From KV47.

A scene depicting the Litany of Ra, showing ram-headed Ba of Osiris and Ra unified. This Ba is flanked by Aset (left) and Nebet-Het (right) as kites atop Underworldly gates or pylons. From KV47, tomb of Sitpah, son of Seti II. Image source.

Osiris was a potent though latent force of life and fertility, “fertility-through-water,” as Redford phrases it. (35) When Osiris’ ever-expanding cult came to the “Watery Place,” His cult adopted the ram as one of His symbols, and Osiris became manifest within the being of Banebdjedet, the Ram Lord of the Abiding Place. Another great life force came to be represented by, and within, Banebdjedet: the Sun God Ra. Banebdjedet’s Ram thus came to be called “The Soul of Ra” and “The Living One of Ra.”

The union of Osiris and Ra as one Godhead can be found in Chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead:

“As for that day of ‘Come to Me,’ it means that Osiris said to Ra, ‘Come to Me that I may see You’ — so said He in the West.

I am His twin souls which are within the twin fledglings [Heru-sa-Aset, the Protector of His Father, and Heru-Wer, The Eyeless].

Who is He? He is Osiris when He entered into Djedet. He found the soul of Ra there and They embraced each other. Then His twin souls came into being.”

(Faulkner et al., Plate 10; 102, 160)

Rundle-Clark points out that this is a basic dogma of the Egyptian religion during the Middle Kingdom Period and the New Kingdom Period. (158) The Sun God Ra as transcendent and Osiris as emergent are the complementary forms of deity. In the same chapter of the Book of the Dead, and throughout other texts, such as the gloss on a coffin from Beni Hassan, Osiris is defined as “past” or “yesterday,” and Ra as “future” or “tomorrow.” This dichotomy of time and oneness is underscored by the mention of Heru-Wer and Heru-sa-Aset: Heru-Wer, the Eyeless One Who is brother of Osiris, is the Falcon of Yesterday; Heru-sa-Aset, the son of Osiris Who is ruling in His father’s place, is the Usherer of Tomorrow. The union of Osiris and Ra as “the Ba of the Ba” is not just about the negotiation of antithetic modes of being as a complementary whole (hetep). It is also about the continuity of time, the assurance that the cycles of life, creation, and rebirth will continue. Banebdjedet is Their union. Banebdjedet is that negotiation and that assurance.

The New Kingdom Period symbol of Banebdjedet for which the God is best known, the ram quadrifrons, or “four faces upon one neck,” represents the four hypostases of the abstract qualities of the Abyss, each with a nuance of the Infinite. These are: Absolute Darkness (Kkw), Infinity (Hhw), Fluidity (Nw), and Directionlessness (Tnmw). The ram quadrifrons also encompassed the basic elements of Creation: Light/Flame, Air, Earth, and Water. These correspond to the Gods Ra, Shu, Geb, and Osiris, respectively. (Redford, 134)

In New Kingdom theology, Banebdjedet came to represent all that was, all that is, all that has yet to become, and all which is not. He is the union of Creation and Uncreation, the Eternity of the Supreme’s Creation and the Limitless Void. The major hypostatic Gods made up His soul and were subordinate to His identity. He was at the same time the manifested soul of all the major hypostatic Gods, and therefore subordinate to Their identities. He had become the Great Contradiction, the Supreme Totality Whose immanence was conflicted.

Banebdjedet is the meeting of opposing life forces, antithetic states of being. Water and fire do not mix, nor do earth and air. Water is cool and latent, a passive thing that is shaped by what surrounds it and goes where gravity dictates. Light/fire is ravaging and forceful, a thing that leaps upward of its own will, and vigorously consumes and changes whatever is in its path. Earth is rigid, fixed, and singular; it is a tangible thing. Air is fluid, weightless, and omnipresent; it is an intangible thing. Yet, none of these can exist or function without the others. If we were to imagine existence as a flower, how would it live if even one of these elements were nixed? Without water, without the light and heat of the sun, without soil, without air . . . there is no life. The plant would perish and be no more.

Banebdjedet is, therefore, Completeness. He is Wholeness. He is Multiversal Balance. His appearance with four faces does not simply have to do with His expression of Ra, Shu, Geb, and Osiris. The four faces aren’t simply representative of the four major elements of Creation within the Egyptian worldview, nor the four major elements of the raw existence extending forever beyond Creation. Four is the number of completion in Egyptian religion, the number of Mysteries. This appearance renders Him an immensely powerful God, an ineffable God Who cannot be entirely known, Whose experience defies even the most precise description.

These are typical features of Monism-flavored Henotheism. The official State religion in Egypt had long since transitioned away from Hard Polytheist interpretations.

Amun’s cult had adopted Banebdjedet’s by the New Kingdom Period, as it had done to so many others before, some time after Banebdjedet came to be tied up with the identities of Ra, Shu, Geb, and Osiris. The all-encompassing profundity of Banebdjedet fit perfectly with the nature of Amun, “The Hidden One,” during this time, not to mention the desires of the cult of Amun for its expansion.

Much like the Hap or Apis bull of Ptah, the bull of Montu’s Bekh cult, and the Men-Wer or Mnevis bull of Ra, Banebdjedet had an incarnation on Earth. It resided in Banebdjedet’s cult center. Foreigners, among them Hellenic and Roman chroniclers, penned salacious stories about the cult of the Living Ram, which may or may not have had a grain of truth to them. Banebdjedet and His ram had the epithet “Fornicating Ram Who Mounts the Beauties.” This not only refers to the fertile aspects of the God, but suggested something perverse about the Ram Lord and His living avatar’s sexual proclivities. In addition to mounting ewes from his harem, the Living Ram, it was rumored, also had sex with human women. Pindar refers to “Mendes, on the overhanging sea-cliff, at the farthest horn of the Nile, where goat-mounting he-goats fornicate with women.” And when Herodotus visited the city during the mid-5th century BCE, he heard report of a recent public spectacle in which a ram had intercourse with a woman; and based on a mould from the site itself, which Donald B. Redford helped to excavate, such coitus a tergo had become a motif in the art of the day, and might have become a staple of the cultic mythology. (Redford, 133)

The Living Ram was well-taken care of by the priesthood of Banebdjedet. In the First century BCE, Diodorus Siculus relays to us that it was kept in a sacred enclosure, and supped “with unfailing regularity [upon] the finest wheaten flour . . . seethed in milk, every kind of confection made with honey, and fowl either boiled or baked.” It was bathed regularly in warm water, anointed in sacred oils, fumigated with fine incense, and bedecked with jewels. (Redford, 127) Upon its death, it was buried with great ceremony among its predecessors in the sepulchre of the sacred rams, “The Mound of Souls.” (Redford, 128) And, much like the the avatar of Ptah, in death, the ram of Banebdjedet became Osiris, having returned to the “primordial mound” from which the God had initially come.

____________________________________________________________________

OTHER APPEARANCES OF BANEBDJEDET
IN RELIGIOUS TEXTS, MYTH, AND FOLKLORE

An inscription which comes to us from the mortuary temple at Medinet Habu of Ramses III gives an account of the relationship the God Banebdjedet had with the Pharaoh’s mother. In it, the God Tatenen states He revealed Himself in the form of Banebdjedet to the Queen, and impregnated her thereby. Hart states that the inscription could also be attempting to identify the chthonic deity Tatenen with the Sun God, the traditional Divine father of the Pharaoh (in keeping with the concept of “Divine Right of Kings”), since Banebdjedet is represented as “Lord of the Sky” and “The Living One of Ra” within The Litany of Ra. (Hart, 53)

In the Chester Beatty Papyrus I, which dates to the 20th Dynasty, Banebdjedet makes a cameo appearance in The Contendings of Heru and Set. Atum sends for Banebdjedet to settle the dispute between Heru-sa-Aset and Set. Banebdjedet is described as dwelling in Setit, which is the island at the first cataract of the Nile at Swentet (Aswan). This identifies Banebdjedet, the Northern Ram, with Khnum, the Southern Ram. Banebdjedet urges the council of the Gods to not rush Their decision, but to instead consult Nit, comically deferring His responsibility. Nit sends out a reply in favor of Heru-sa-Aset — much to Banebdjedet’s chagrin, as He was ultimately in support of Set’s claim to the throne. (Hart, 53)

Banebdjedet is mentioned in a spell designed to repel hostile articulations of heka which have been set against an individual. The Henadology article states :

Here the operator refers to ‘the name of the relics of Banebdjedet – four faces on one neck – to which offerings are brought with a seal’ as a ‘mystery’ of the ‘Great House’ (the temple at Mendes) which the operator denies having repeated; rather, ‘It is this magic that comes for NN born of NN that has said it, that has repeated it.’ The spell launched against the operator is thus symbolically transformed into an act of profaning the sanctuary of Banebdjedet, and hence presumably turned back upon the one who would wield it.”

In addition to Chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead as mentioned in the previous section, Banebdjedet makes another appearance within the funerary text, spell 125A, “The Chapter for Entering into the Hall of Two Truths and a Chapter for Praising Osiris, Foremost of the Westerners” :

“Words spoken by Yinepu [Anubis] in the presence of His entourage: ‘A man has come from Egypt who knows our roads and our towns, and I am satisfied with him. I smell his odor as belonging to one among you. He has said to me: I am the Osiris [deceased person] _________, the vindicated, in peace and in vindication. I have come here to see the Great Gods and so that I might live upon the offerings which are Their victuals, while I am the limits of the Ram, the Lord of Djedet. He allows me to fly up as a Bennu-bird at my saying so, when I am in the river.’ “

(Faulkner et al., Plate 30)

______________________________________________________________________

WORKS CITED

Banebdjedet.” Henadology : Philosophy and Theology. Web. Date of access: May 5, 2013.

Faulkner, Raymond O. et al. The Egyptian Book of the Dead — The Book of Going Forth by Day : The Complete Papyrus of Ani. 2nd Ed. San Fransisco : Chronicle Books LLC, 2008.

Hart, George. A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 10th ed. New York : Routledge & Kegan Paul, Inc., 2000.

Redford, Donald B. City of the Ram-Man : The Story of Ancient Mendes. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2010.

Rundle-Clark, R. T. Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt. London : Thames and Hudson, Ltd. London, 1978.

Wilkinson, Richard H. Reading Egyptian Art – A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture. London : Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1992.



Some “Good” News for Heathen Servicemen and Veterans

0
0

The Hammer of Thor is available as an emblem of belief for placement on United States government grave markers.

Available Emblems of Belief - Thor's HammerIt’s perhaps not the biggest social victory any of us could ever hope for, but it’s something. It’s a sign that slow but sure changes are being made toward greater acceptance of minority religionists — including Polytheists — within the United States military.

Of course, this comes at a steep price: the death of servicemen. Keep the fallen and their grieving families in your thoughts and prayers, and don’t let their sacrifices be in vain. The fight isn’t over yet for minority religionists; a lot of discrimination still goes on within and without the military. Let’s try to be as brave for them as they were for us.

Hail the honored dead — may they have found peace at last. And hail to those who advocated and continue to advocate for the rights and freedoms of servicemen both alive and dead. They are proof that there is a community, that it’s worth salvaging in spite of the differences we all have, and that there’s hope for us yet.


Slaying the Demon-Serpent : The Heka of Mindfulness and the Execration of Fear

0
0
"Vehement Strength" by Ehuatl. It shows Set in His incarnation (probably syncretized with the Libyan God 'Ash) at the temple at the Kharga Oasis, Hebet/Hibis.

“Vehement Strength,” by Ehuatl. This Modern image is based on an Ancient relief of Set in His ethereal falcon incarnation, from the temple of Amun in the Kharga Oasis (Hebet / Hibis). Set might very well be syncretized with the God ‘Ash in this incarnation. He slays the hated agent of isfet, Apep, demonstrating the perpetual and glorious triumph of Creation over the Abyss.

DISCLAIMER : I will be discussing mental health in the following passages — namely, my living with and working to overcome an anxiety disorder. While my father is an LCSW R, I am not a professional within the field of Psychology and Social Work myself. The paraphrasing of my father that follows is NOT a substitute for case assessment and/or treatment of the reader by a licensed mental health professional. If the reader has unresolved mental health complications, the reader is strongly advised to seek out professional help of their own, in-person, if they have not done so already. Neither my father nor I will be responsible for any injuries resulting from self-diagnosis, self-medication, or any other form of misinformed, ill-advised recklessness on the part of the reader.
__________________________________________________________________

I am an anxiety sufferer. I’ve always been something of an anxious person, one very prone to existentialist thought-crises. The thought — the knowledge — of having been brought, unasked, into a pointless existence of suffering, decay, and death haunts my every hour. It requires the most concerted, draining effort of my mind and soul to arrive at any semblance of meaning that I cannot immediately disassemble and dash against the unforgiving, jagged rocky face of my psyche, confronted by a yawning, will-siphoning Abyss my tiny mortal brain cannot comprehend. I can only feel utter helplessness and despondence before it.

Even when I am not under conscious duress due to overanalyzing every potentiality and thought process my ever-restless brain can conceive, I am sometimes hit with the “fight, flight, or freeze” reaction on a physiological level. Hardly ever requiring a cue, my body decides it has perceived some imminent threat the rest of me isn’t aware of: my adrenals kick into overdrive; my blood becomes saturated with cortisol; my thoughts become indistinguishable and racing; my body becomes tense and desperate, yet tired. I am exhausted. In pain. Helpless.

Both of my parents are, conveniently enough for me, professional social workers. While my mother has no particular specialty I am aware of and has fewer years of experience than my father, my father, an LCSW R with decades of experience in the field of Psychology and Social Work, is an anxiety and phobia specialist. It is my father I consult the most frequently.

In the many candid therapy sessions I have with my father, he tells me that my anxiety is conquerable. It’s a serious hindrance, but not one that is “serious” in the sense of being impossible to combat, subdue, and overcome. I must practice mindfulness and make it my undying routine in order to do so.

This type of anxiety and related depression are, in part, the result of high intelligence,” he tells me. “It’s the ‘curse of genius,’ especially for the analytically-minded. Many of the people I see are absolutely brilliant, but live in fear and despondence. For all their capability and potential, for all their successes, many of them can’t function due to the paralyzing anxieties they experience from day to day. Their anxiety stems from their overactive minds. They deconstruct every thought until it becomes so abstract that they cannot relate to it. Then they become unable to relate themselves to anything, becoming highly stressed. This self-abstraction can often lead to anxiety and depression, which has the potential to become so extreme that they trigger psycho-somatic states of distress.”

“Like derealization or depersonalization episodes? Wherein you feel like a detached third-person observer, and become extremely light-headed?” I asked, recalling some previous conversations we had on the subject.

Yes,” he replied. “And this is definitely the case for much of your anxiety and subsequent depression. The secret to overcoming your type of anxiety? Your mind does it, and it’s up to you to use your mind to undo it. Distract yourself mindfully. Engage in any activity — such as showering, exercising, solving puzzles, controlled breathing, focusing on the texture of something, anything within that vein — to alter the mind-body state and restore equilibrium to yourself.” And then he proceeded to walk me through the various methods of consciously altering the mind-body state enumerated by Dr. Edmund J. Bourne in his publications.

So, basically, pull a Paul Atreides,” I quipped, alluding to one of our mutual-favorite works of Science Fiction, Frank Herbert’s Dune.

Yes. I must pull a Paul Atreides. Mental conditioning of firm and unyielding discipline, lest I am swallowed up, paralyzed, by the Abyss.

I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it is gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear is gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain.

The Litany Against Fear of the Bene Gesserit, from Frank Herbert’s Dune

Such things turn my mind to Set, my “Divine Father.” Dune is full of powerful words that I can easily imagine Set saying, words which ostensibly suit His nature and attitude quite well.

Set bears the epithets “Great of Strength” and “Powerful of Foreleg,”  the latter relating to His association with the constellation of Ursa Major (to the Egyptians, it was the leg of a bull), and with this foreleg (hpš), sometimes referred to as a scimitar, Set vanquishes malevolent forces, and sometimes other Gods. (Te Velde, 87) These qualities render Him a very stoic God of both immense power and immense responsibility. He is self-reliance incarnate. And despite Set’s buffoonish and nasty behavior in the folklore that came out of the New Kingdom Period, particularly during the abysmal reign of Ramses V (Pinch, 79), He is also the stabilizing pillar and panoply of the community, of the Gods, of Creation, and of Cosmic Balance.

A menacing statue of Set, shown in the traditional pose of what Ancient Near Eastern Art Historians refer to as the "Smiting God." This "Smiting God" is believed to represent the Ugaritic (Canaanite) deity Ba'al-Hadad, with Whom Set was conflated. He appears with ram's horns; the reason for this is uncertain, but may denote a possible syncretism with the State God, Amun. New Kingdom Period, XIXth -- XXth Dynasty (ca. 1295 -- 1070 BCE)

A menacing bronze statue of Set, shown in the traditional pose of what Art Historians refer to as the “Smiting God,” typical of West and Northwest Semitic art. This “Smiting God” is believed to represent the Ugaritic (Canaanite) deity Ba’al-Hadad, with Whom Set was conflated. He appears here with ram’s horns; the reason for this is uncertain, but may denote a possible syncretism with the State God of the period, Amun-Ra. New Kingdom Period, XIXth — XXth Dynasty (ca. 1295 — 1070 BCE). Image source.

Set is described as being the only God strong enough to subdue the the vile nothing, Apep, which repeatedly attempts to assassinate the Sun God in His Boat of Millions of Years in order to dismantle Creation and reestablish the “perfect state” of the Primaeval Void. Every night, Set drives His lance (or His “foreleg”/scimitar: hpš) into its mouth, killing it, and paints the light of the dawn red with its blood. Every night — night being the “stain of Uncreation” upon Creation (Meeks, 22) — the Apep reconstitutes its non-self, and reemerges from the Abyss to torment the Gods in the Solar Barque once more. Then, Set slays it again. The cycle repeats itself ad infinitum, with Set emerging victorious each and every time.

In other Ancient myths, Set is responsible for slaying the malevolent and tyrannical Sea God Yamm, having been conflated with the Ugaritic Storm God Ba’al-Hadad and the Hurrian Storm God Tešub, particularly during the Second Intermediate Period and other periods of Egyptian history that saw large influxes of Northwest and West Semitic immigrants. (Te Velde, 121; 123) Yamm had insulted and threatened the Gods of Egypt with destruction, demanding tribute from Them. However, no form of tribute was enough for this rapacious and conniving God, Who desired above all to be awarded the station of “Lord of All,” and none of the Gods of Egypt were strong enough to repel Him — except Set. They therefore called upon Set in Their desperation (and/or His Semitic War Goddess-wives ‘Anat and Astarte). Set thundered against Yamm and slayed Him, saving Egypt and her Gods from a terrible fate. (Ayali-Darshan, 19 – 21; Pinch, 59)

Set had in large part adopted the mythic cycles of both Ba’al-Hadad and Tešub. Each of these deities’ mythic cycles, it should be noted, were well-developed before any association between Them was established. (Te Velde, 123) Set is by proxy the slayer of dragons and violent beings of the sea similar to the aforementioned Mesopotamian Gods’ enemies : Lotan, Illuyankas, Hedammu, Mot — representatives of the Abyss which were identified with Apep in the Egyptian mind. (Wifall, 2009)

Set as the "Bull of Nubt," called "Ombos" in Classical Antiquity. He is shown on this limestone stela with the head of a bull -- a symbol of both Set and Ba'al-Hadad -- wearing Canaanite-style dress. He is spearing a foe. New Kingdom Period, XVIIIth -- XXth Dynasty (1550 -- 1080 BCE). Photo © Bo Christiansen. Image source.

Set as the “Bull of Nubt (Ombos).” He is shown on this limestone stela with the head of a bull, wearing Canaanite-style dress. New Kingdom Period, XVIIIth — XXth Dynasty (1550 — 1080 BCE). Photo © Bo Christiansen. Image source.

Set has to face obstacles and monsters so terrible in His mythic cycles that other Gods either cannot or will not face them. Every time He faces His anti-Cosmic enemies, they fall before Him. Later myths and pieces of folklore, while they demonize Set, demonstrate His strength and inability to be killed or maimed permanently. As is the case with Ba’al-Hadad in His conflict with the wicked Mot, Set returns from death when He is killed by other Gods. He spontaneously restores His own genitals in myths and folkloric tales in later periods, after another God or several castrates Him. It is worth mentioning that literature from earlier periods tend to maintain that it is Djehuty Who restores Set’s genitals, after Set gets Himself wounded in His conflicts for supremacy. (Pinch, 98)

Set is therefore a God of meaningful transformation, of persistence. He is a God Who cannot ever be defeated or dominated for good and all. Set never relents. Set is the Lord of Terror Who descends into the darkness, confronts the Abyss, and makes it afraid of Him.

In addition to His being my chief God and a Divine Father-figure to me, these are the reasons why I turn to Him when it comes to my own weaknesses and fears. I try not to give into frightened impulses by running to Set and begging Him to protect me from existence. Rather, I approach Set with the desire and intention to cultivate self-mastery and bring to heel the Abyss I find myself confronted by. I am well aware that the world, that life, is not going to get any easier or gentler or less insane for my sake, or for anyone’s. I have to become tougher and be the master of myself and my anxiety, or I will get crushed. I therefore incorporate my “Divine Father” into the mindfulness techniques my actual, literal father gave me, in order to help facilitate this toughening and betterment of myself.

When it comes to meditation and mindfulness exercises, I cannot sit in one spot and force myself to feel calm and “think happy thoughts.” It simply doesn’t work that way. My mind is never quiet; I must divorce myself from my anxious, racing thoughts through motion, through mind-body exercises, to achieve such a state. The Ashtanga Vinyāsa spin on Haṭha yoga is my preferred method of body-mind meditation, and is an effective counter-anxiety tool. Yoga is Indian/Hindu in origin (Haṭha dates from the 15th century CE; Ashtanga Vinyāsa was introduced during the mid-20th century, and has become exceptionally popular in the West in recent years). It doesn’t really belong to any religious ideologies I personally subscribe to. Nevertheless, it is has done me worlds of good — studies have been done which elucidate its psychological and physical health benefits — and helps me connect to the Gods, specifically but not limited to Set, more deeply and meaningfully.

The yoga practice I engage in forces me to focus on breath control and articulations of physical power through a fluid yet challenging (sometimes painful) series of postures. It allows me to take that fear, that anxiety, that pain, and channel it into constructive, conquering, life-affirming, self-affirming, God-affirming force. It doesn’t silence my mind completely, but it tones down the interference significantly, allowing me to better connect with my own power and the Gods’ power. I can’t “hear” Set in this state, necessarily, but I can sometimes “feel” Him and picture Him in my mind; picture myself doing the work I need to do with, and for, Set.

I must endure a struggle each time I stretch my mortal clay upon my rubber mat before my deities’ shrine, in order to achieve fluid balance, perfect breath, and movement mastery. It is a purification, a minor ordeal, and an offering. It is never flawless, but each time I perform the exercise, I become better. I feel better. I am better. I am caring for my ka and cultivating a stronger spirit, which is not only pleasing and of benefit to me, but is pleasing and of benefit to the Gods and the communities to which I belong.

This struggle and demonstration of fortitude is not merely physical. The form of meditation is an abstract one. Of course, one could make the argument that all forms of meditation are abstract, but that is somewhat beside the point. As mentioned previously, much of the anxiety I suffer with stems from a tendency to deconstruct ideas and objects to the point of not being able to relate to or find meaning in my surroundings and my life, resulting in anxiousness and despondence. Haṭha requires that one divorces oneself from the material — engage in abstraction — in order to achieve the correct state. In other words, it translates to actively confronting the Abyss that causes me so much distress.

When I “sink down into the dark” through yoga, however, it is not with fear. This form of abstraction is healthier and controlled, not the worried, hurried form of abstraction my mind mires itself in while distressed.

When I “sink down into the dark” through mind-body exercises, I take inspiration from Ancient Egyptian funerary texts, such as the Pyramid Texts and the Amduat. In these texts, the “Osiris” (deceased person) goes through a series of rigorous trials, undergoing transformations and fighting malevolent forces in order to successfully become an Akh and reach Paradise. Various utterances within these texts outline how the “Osiris” takes on the form and identity of various Gods in order to overcome manifold obstacles. Some even take on the form of certain Gods in order to kill, or even eat, some of the less-than-friendly Gods of the Duat. Utterances 273 and 274 of the Pyramid Texts, known as “The Cannibal Hymn,” are an example of this.

While in my mind-body exercises I am probably not literally venturing into the Duat or the Abyss itself, I perform heka and “magically” assume the identity of various Gods in order to combat the Abyss, or more appropriately, the state of the Abyss which manifests within the anxiety-stricken mind. The physical motions are a positive, repetitive reinforcement of that heka. Rather than use the usual labels for the various sequences and postures within yogic practice, I apply the names and activities of the Afro-Asiatic deities of my understanding to them, and focus on those as I perform them. For instance, I don’t think of performing postures as “cat to cat-lift, to downward-facing dog, to upward-facing dog, back to downward-facing dog, to warrior sequence, to firebird sequence.” It takes on a much different narrative in my mind, to this effect:

I begin on the Primordial Mound. Tatenen receives me and raises me up, and I am stretched across the Heavens by His hands. I stretch myself over the borders of Creation and Uncreation as Khepri. I rise as Khepri, Who is ever-becoming and never-dying, Whose becoming is the becoming of all things. In my form of Khepri I see the Abyss and see within the Abyss nothing to fear. I am the one Whose brilliant plumage is blinding and strikes the lance of fear into the pericardium of the heart of darkness. I stretch forth my limbs and become the foreleg of Set, Whose foreleg is powerful. I am His foreleg, I am His scimitar, I am His powerful arm, I am vindicated. These my arms are Set’s arms, and this my body is Set’s body. I am become absolute and eternal and of irresistible strength. My arrows strike forth and pierce the Abyss as the incinerating rays of the sun. The Abyss is powerless against me, and I do not fear it. I cleave the dark in twain. I cleave the head of Apep from the dead body of Apep which I have slain and made many mortal wounds in. The Abyss is powerless against me, the Abyss does not consume me, for I am in the form of my Father, the Lord of Terror, and I stand indomitable as the immovable Noble Djed.

Just as Set must slay Apep again and again, I must stand up again and again to consciously and fearlessly cast down my anxiety and its physiological symptoms through these exercises. As a human being born into the world like every other human being — with an overwhelming instinct of fear and an innately frightened consciousness acutely aware of its own mortality — I may never be able to kill every last one of my anxieties forever, just as Apep never stays dead for good and all. The important thing is that I never back down, never let myself succumb to hopelessness and helplessness, just as Set never throws in His scimitars and lances and gives up on ensuring the perpetual triumph of ma’at and the continuation of existence.

One day, all the things I love and treasure will run their course and come to their inevitable ends. One day, my body will die, and it will probably be painful. I know this. And what do I do with that knowledge? Do I cower and cry in fear of it, mope about it, and allow my brief existence to be more miserable than it ever has to be? Or do I slap fear, anxiety, depression — the Abyss — in the face with the tools and techniques I have acquired, and say to them “you’re not going to ruin my life, and I’m not going to suffer for you”?

I go with the latter every time. That is the only real option. That is the only attitude and the only response that Set, the merciless executioner of every agent of the Abyss that ever tried to unmake His treasured Creation, will ever accept.

WORKS CITED

Ayali-Darshan, Noga. ” ‘The Bride of the Sea’ — The Traditions About Astarte and Yamm in the Ancient Near East.” A Woman of Valor : Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz. Edited by Wayne Horowitz, Uri Gabbay, Filip Vukosavović. CSIC. ISBN 978-84-00-09133-0.

Meeks, Dimitri, and Christine Favard-Meeks. Daily Life of the Egyptian Gods. Translated by G. M. Goshgarian. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1991.

Pinch, Geraldine. Egyptian Myth – A Very Short Introduction. New York : Oxford University Press Inc, 2004.

Te Velde, H. Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of His Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion. 2nd Ed. English Translation by Mrs. G. E. van Baaren-Pape. Leiden : Brill, 1977. ISBN 90-04-05402-2.

Wifall, Walter. “The Sea of Reeds as Sheol.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Volume 92, Issue 3, Pages 325–332, ISSN (Online) 1613-0103, ISSN (Print) 0044-2526, DOI: 10.1515/zatw.1980.92.3.325, October 2009. Date of access: May 13, 2013.


Kemetic Round Table : Heka . . . ‘vuh Headache

0
0
A Late Period (7th century BCE) stela of the Egyptian God Heka, shown with the features of "all Gods." This image in meant to convey the multiversal, all-pervasive nature of the power He personifies, which all beings possess. Faience, H:16,3 cm E 10954. Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Egyptiennes, Paris, France. Photo courtesy of the Lessing Photo Archive.

A Late Period (7th century BCE) stela of the Egyptian God Heka or Bes Pantheos, shown with the features of “all Gods.” This image is meant to convey the multiversal, all-pervading nature of the power He personifies, which all beings possess. Faience, H:16,3 cm E 10954. Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Egyptiennes, Paris, France. Photo courtesy of the Lessing Photo Archive.

Heka is one of the most difficult concepts to explain within Ancient Egyptian religion. It is a concept that is very hard for Westerners to understand, given that our Modern conceptions (false or otherwise) of the entirety of the Ancient World, and many of the traditions practiced in the West during the Medieval and Modern Periods, are largely derived from linguistic and cultural remnants from Ancient Hellas and Rome. This understanding has only been complicated by the rise of Occult traditions during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, before Egyptologists began to develop more accurate understandings of all things Egyptian. And this is to say nothing of the sheer vastness and ambiguity of heka, and how it permeated virtually every aspect of Ancient Egyptian culture and religion.

Many have tried to explore the topic in its entirety, but each publication, even publications of the highest quality written by the most seasoned of experts in the field of Egyptology, leave much to be desired. I don’t imagine I’ll be able to succeed where so many experienced scholars have failed, much less within one measly survey article. All this having been said, we can at least cover the bare basics here and pave the way toward better, more objective understanding of heka.

I’ve written much more informal articles on practical heka in the past, namely for my Heka for Everyone series (wherein I do compare heka with “magic” at times, despite the invalidity of the comparison, for the sake of reducing headaches among my readership and allowing others to better understand what is being discussed, based on the level of their understanding), and my most recent article, Slaying the Demon-Serpent : The Heka of Mindfulness and the Execration of Fear. For readers more interested in short, sweet, practical definitions, and how to perform practical heka in a Modern setting, I recommend perusing the links above. This article, while it won’t be nearly as “complete” as I would like it to be, will be very long and intensive, covering the areas of Etymology, History, and Philosophy that concern what heka is, and what heka is not.

HEKA IS NOT MAGIC, SORCERY, OR WITCHCRAFT

In order to understand what heka truly is, we must first trudge through the historical record. Not simply concerning the history of Egypt in relation to the rest of the Ancient World, but also part of the history of the interdependent sciences of Sociology, Anthropology, and History.

Modern scholars, even those of the 21st century, still have a great deal of trouble reconciling themselves with the Ancient Egyptian concept of heka, as it does not fit the traditional Western socioanthropological definition of what magic is, what types of practices qualify as magic, under what circumstances certain practices qualify as magic, and how magic functions in various contexts.

It should go without saying that old habits die hard, and this is especially true of the interdependent sciences of Sociology, Anthropology, and History. Many scholars over the last century or more have formed much of their understanding on the basis of James G. Frazer’s and Bronislaw Malinowski’s (long since outmoded) theories. Frazer, Malinowski, and many of their contemporaries and successors tended to define magic as being “nonreligious,” and distinguished magic from religion on the basis of magic’s “blasphemous,” threatening attitude; its tendency to be performed beyond the view of the public eye and the State-sanctioned eye; its desire to manipulate external forces rather than “submit to the will of God;” and its immediate, limited, egoistic goals. (Ritner et al., 191-2)

Today’s scholars are only just beginning to break the mold of the old regime of the interdependent sciences of Sociology, Anthropology, and History. Classical Studies professionals are beginning to better grasp how Hellenic and Roman magic worked and how Hellenes and Romans viewed its practice. Less and less personal bias, religious or otherwise, is being factored into and accepted within new / revised interpretations. These new / revised interpretations strive to view Hellenic matters through a Hellenic lens, Roman matters through a Roman lens, and so on — not a Modern Western one. Notwithstanding, heka still tends to elude the understanding of most. Why? Because it is so linguistically, culturally, and religiously alien to Western languages, cultures, and religions. The West has always had a keen fascination with Ancient Egypt since the first moment of exposure, but the West has never really understood anything about it, because so very little of it fits the prevailing patterns found among the many cultures of the Ancient World.

Heka has no definitive English equivalent. It only very roughly translates to “art of the mouth” or “meaningful speech.” (Jackson, 102) “Art of the mouth” and “meaningful speech” might not make entirely too much sense to anyone who is not literate in the ins and outs of Ancient Egyptian Theology and Philosophy, and religious, literary, and artistic conventions. Attempting to explain these conventions in their entirety here would be exhausting, burdensome, and above all, impossible. It is up to the reader to acquaint his or herself with the multitudinous facets of Ancient Egyptian culture. That is, if the reader desires fuller rather than cursory, out-of-context understanding.

The closest concept we English-speakers can liken it to is our understanding of “magic.” However, what spares us a minor headache in the short term comes at the price of understanding in the long term. This equation of unlike concepts falls quite short of the mark for a number of reasons. The word “magic” comes from Latin magia meaning “sorcery, magic,” and from Greek mageia and magike (the latter term in conjunction with tekne, meaning “art” or “craft”). (Ritner et al., 192) The Hellenes and Romans who conceived these words and concepts attached specific values to them which pre-Graeco-Roman influence Egyptians simply did not have. Even when Hellenic and Roman mores were foisted upon Ancient Egyptian society, the Ancient Egyptian view was very difficult to change, and took many centuries for such polarized values to effectively take root. Namely, they would take lasting effect during the lattermost years of Late Antiquity and the dawn of the Early Medieval Period, which within the context of Egyptian History is referred to as the Coptic Period.

WHERE “MAGIC” COMES FROM,
THE VALUES HELLENES AND ROMANS ATTACHED TO IT,
AND WHY IT IS NOT A COMMUTABLE DEFINITION FOR HEKA

Magic in Hellas

The minor Goddess or "sorceress" Circe and Odysseus' men. Athenian red-figure pelike, 5th century BCE. Staatliche Kunstammlungen, Dresden.

The minor Goddess and sorceress, Circe (left). She is skilled in the magical arts of illusion and necromancy. Circe is the daughter of Helios, the God of the Sun, and Perse, an Oceanid. Other accounts state that Circe is the daughter of Hekate. According to myth, Circe murdered her husband, the prince of Colchis. For this she was expelled, and placed on the solitary island of Aeaea by her father. Red-figure pelike, 5th century BCE. Staatliche Kunstammlungen, Dresden.

During the Classical Period in Hellas proper, we see “a range of largely hostile sources [which construct] for us, under such terms as goêtes (“sorcerers”) and magoi (“mages”), an impression of a nebulous group of supposedly fraudulent and beggarly” social undesirables living on the fringes of society engaging in either forbidden, foreign, or malevolent arts. (Ogden, 5 – 6) This might have been a popular cultural view at the time, or perhaps merely the interpretational bias of scholars over the last few centuries, but examples of anything akin to legislation against magic in Classical Period Hellas are few. Much of the little we know of, oddly enough, doesn’t come from Athenian records. What little that does exist addresses malevolent magic almost exclusively, leaving a comfortable amount of room for interpretive play regarding “positive” magic.

Ogden provides two explicit examples. The first is the Dirae Teiorum (circa 479 BCE), a series of curses issued by the State of Teos against any and all people that would transgress against it. Its statutes include condemnations of baneful magics, namely harmful spells and poisons (pharmaka dêlêtêria). It also goes on to warn that anyone who disrupts the commerce of Teos; betrays the State, officials, and people of Teos; and “if anyone in office does not perform this curse at the statue of Dynamis when the games are convened at the Anthesteria or the festival of Herakles or that of Zeus,” the perpetrator “is to be the object of the curse,” and / or “he is to die, himself and his family with him.” (Ogden, 275)  Within the Classical Hellenic worldview, magic was presumably legal and acceptable so long as one did not use magic for nefarious purposes (read: against the State) — much in the same way that pencils are legal, and it’s entirely acceptable to use pencils, but one will be severely punished if one uses pencils to gouge others’ eyes out.

The second example comes from a sacred law of private cult from Philadelphia in Lydia. In these rules for a private cult, members are required to avoid wicked spells and incantations, alongside adultery, murder, robbery, and rape, but they are not asked to avoid spells and incantations in general. More specifically, they are required to avoid love spells, which are classified as baneful magic. Ogden argues that the immediately following prohibitions, against abortifacients and contraceptives, are also to be classified with wicked spells and incantations. (Ogden, 276 – 7)

Magic in Rome

The official Roman attitude toward magic and its practitioners was far more condemning than any views espoused in writing by the Hellenes, and only became worse over time. The Romans certainly had infinitely more legislation against the practice of magic than the Hellenes had. Roman statutes outlawed many different kinds of magic, and not just malevolent magic. In the Roman World, magic was seen as something done in secret by suspicious, law-breaking miscreants bent on disrupting Roman order and harming others. Roman officials, it would seem, were highly suspicious of sorcerous activity. Unexpectedly successful people, particularly newcomers to communities, were highly prone to being accused of sorcery (veneficiis). We see this within Rome’s Archaic law code, the Twelve Tables (circa 451 BCE), which state that “crop-charming” (in reality, that simply translated to an unusually high crop yield) was illegal — though no outline of punishment for “crop-charming” within this document remains intact, much less how one determines if and how the accused has “charmed” their crops. It is at the very least clear that Roman law from its earliest beginnings was very much interested in the repression of “magic, subcategories thereof, and allied phenomena.” (Ogden, 277)

Archaeologists discovered this ancient Roman "curse tablet" in Leicester, England. The tablet, which was found near the ruins of a large Roman townhouse dating from the second century A.D., is a lead sheet bearing an inscription that asks a god to kill the thief who stole a man's cloak. Image source.

Ancient Roman “curse tablet,” 2nd century CE, Leicester, England. Image source.

In 186 BCE, there were senatorial decrees of note issued with the intention of cracking down on Bacchic rites. Of course, they didn’t abolish Bacchic rites entirely, as if such a prohibition were ever possible. The source Ogden provides comes from Bruttium, and states that “it is one among many copies that would have been set up all over Italy in response to the Senate’s decree.” (278) The crisis which gave rise to this decree supposedly began when a “Greek petty sacrificer and diviner (sacrificulus et vateshad introduced his initiations and secret nocturnal rites into Etruria. The petty sacrificer’s cult had spread quickly and come to Rome . . . [and with it came] human sacrifice, criminality, drunkenness, and promiscuous sex of all varieties.” (278 – 9) This is but one example of an increasing trend among Roman society to associate magic and foreign cults with conspiracy and attempts to overthrow the State. Shortly after the issue of this decree, in 184 and 180 BCE, if we are to believe Livy, some five thousand people were executed in Italy for veneficia. (Livy 39.41 and 40.43). (Ogden, 279)

Later punishments are exceptionally cruel. In Pseudo-Paulus’s opinions on Sulla’s law of 81 BCE against assassins and sorcerers (Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis), one reads:

Those who perform or direct the performance of impious or nocturnal rites, in order to bewitch, bind, or tie [obcantarent, defigerent, obligarent] a person, are either crucified or thrown to the beasts. Those who sacrifice a human being, make offerings of human blood, or pollute a sanctuary or temple, are thrown to the beasts or, if they are of the upper classes, executed. It is resolved to subject those who know the craft of magic to the ultimate punishment, that is, to throw them to the beasts or crucify them. Actual mages, however, are burned alive. No one may have books on the craft of magic in his house. If they are found in someone’s house, they are burned in public and their owner has his property confiscated; upper classes are deported to an island, lower classes are executed. Even the mere knowledge of this craft, let alone its pursuit as a trade, is forbidden.

(Ogden, 279)

The Romans obviously made a clear distinction between what was State-sanctioned, acceptable religion and everyday behavior, and everything else — “everything else” being inherently wicked and warranting brutal punishment.

These traditions, value systems, and definitions are what ultimately make up our Modern English word “magic.” What the Hellenes and Romans viewed as “magic,” what they viewed as acceptable, were nothing like the Egyptian concept and articulation of heka, and the integral role heka played (and for Modern Kemetics, still plays) in both formal religion and everyday life.

HEKA IN EGYPT — THERE IS NO MAGIC HERE

The Egyptians were the odd ones out among their Ancient contemporaries. To the Egyptians, there was no “bad heka” or “good heka.” There was no concept of “sorcery” or “witchcraft” as was understood within Hellenic culture and Roman culture, or indeed by that of Egypt’s numerous Semitic neighbors to the East. Furthermore, no such definition of “sorcery” or “witchcraft” existed within the Ancient Egyptian vocabulary that Modern “magicians” and “witches” use for themselves today. Which, incidentally, makes it quite easy for the layperson to avoid fraudulent Modern publications that profess revelatory, esoteric knowledge about “Egyptian Witchcraft,” since 1.) heka is exoteric rather than esoteric in nature and function, and 2.) “witchcraft” was not something Ancient Egyptians had any concept of whatsoever.

There was only heka. Heka was, and is, simply heka. Heka is a tool, and a power innate within Creation that binds all beings to the interdependent network of Creation and connective justice. This innate power can be articulated by intelligent beings, both mortal and immortal. Ritner states “Egyptian heka was considered neither supernatural nor unholy, representing instead the Divinely-sanctioned force that initiated, permeated, and sustained [existence] itself.” (192 – 3) Karshner adds to this insight, telling us that “the rules by which one secured power were the same whether one was a peasant or a God . . . power and [heka] were not mysterious or esoteric to the Egyptians. [They] were a part of an individual’s very existence.” (Karshner, 52)

Heka was part and parcel of official religion and everyday life. It was not something people necessarily did in secrecy beyond the view of the public eye, though it is conceivable that some manners of articulation required some degree of discreetness. Heka was part of the mortar that helped bind Egyptian society together. Ironically enough, formal and State religious rites were performed in the secrecy of temples’ inner sanctums, where non-authorized personnel were absolutely never allowed. (Pinch, 92) The participation of non-priests in official religion, especially before the New Kingdom and Ptolemaic Periods, was highly restricted. However, heka was not simply tapped-into by priests who had authorized access to a cult’s icon and its inner sanctum. It was done in the open, too, in everyday life, by people of all walks of life — both priests and non-priests.

So why, exactly, was heka acceptable within Ancient Egyptian culture when magic within other cultures of the Ancient World was not?

Ancient Egyptian society was what Assmann refers to as a “cosmological society.” By Assmann’s definition, a cosmological society lives by a model of Cosmic forms of equilibrium and stability, which it transforms into political and social equilibrium and stability on Earth by means of meticulous and repetitive observance of rituals. Within Ancient Egyptian religion, heka was, and is, the means through which the microcosm could and can relate to and find reciprocal relevance to the macrocosm. (Assmann, 205; Karshner, 54)

Regularity, recurrence, and predictability were of the utmost necessity and value. In Egyptian religion, the Will and fate of the Gods is bound to the maintenance of the processes of the Cosmos. It is therefore the duty of priests — practitioners of heka (hekau) in general — to reenact these processes through rhetoric and pantomine. This serves not only to establish some semblance of Order on Earth, but also ensures the functioning of the Cosmos, the renewal of existence in perpetuity, and the security of the Gods’ perpetual life and good will toward humankind. As Assmann puts it, “Creation was not over and done with on the seventh day, but continued on indefinitely.” (206) The Ancient Egyptians understood that a well-established relationship with the Gods was vital, and in need of especial attention. To ignore Their maintenance and the maintenance of Cosmic equilibrium spelled mutually-assured destruction. Without the heka-based assistance of mortals, the Gods would be greatly weakened and conceivably perish against the forces of the Uncreated. Without the Gods, the forces of the Uncreated would run amok and all good things would cease to be, not just the Gods. In the Egyptian mind, non-existence was the chiefest of nightmares, and heka was the only tool with which to combat non-existence and sustain existence.

Traced from a photo by Jennifer Wheatley. © Joan Lansberry. Image source.

Traced from a photo by Jennifer Wheatley. © Joan Ann Lansberry. Image source.

The execration or curse was a vital tool of heka to the Ancient Egyptians, and is still a practice of popularity and importance among Kemetics today. In Antiquity, not only was it considered not wrong to execrate or curse transgressors against ma’at, transgressors against the State, and transgressors against one’s own person, it was encouraged. Indeed, it was vital to ritually carry out the destruction of enemies, such as the demon-serpent Apep, foreign aggressors, and criminals. This ensured that the machinations of both the Multiverse and human society would continue to function normally. The last native-born ruler of Ancient Egypt, Nectanebo II, is said to have repelled foreign invasions by making wax models of his own ships and men, and those of the invaders. After placing them all in a container full of water, Nectanebo II would wave his ebony rod and invoke Gods and demons to animate the wax models and sink the enemy ships. This caused the actual enemy navy to founder until the day when the Gods decreed that Nectanebo II’s reign should come to an end. (Pinch, 92) This ritual pantomime mirrors quite closely the execrations of Apep conducted in secret within temple sanctuaries by authorized priests. In these execrations, wax models were made of current enemies of the State, as well as the nemeses of Creation and Cosmic equilibrium. Their names were inscribed upon their effigies, and these effigies were ritually dismembered, stabbed, burned, and sometimes even urinated upon. The smashing of red pots upon which Execration Texts were written was another common method of execration which achieved the same aim. (Pinch, 93)

The Ancient Egyptians saw little to no problem with performing heka for or against one’s fellows. One of the lines from the Instructions for Merikare reads: “[The Creator] has made for them [heka], as a weapon to resist the events that happen.” (Jackson, 100-1) The concept of connective justice inherent within their society “enabled men to act for one-another.” (Assmann, 239) “Doing” and “faring” lay completely within the sphere of human responsibility, and was not a matter of Divine or Cosmic micromanagement or guilt. Cursing one’s neighbor for stealing one’s belongings, or acquiring a person’s love through the use of spells, for instance, did not necessarily result in misfortune for the one performing the heka. Mishap and misfortune, rather, were the result of isfet / the forces of Uncreation, and could happen to anyone, however innocent or not-innocent, for any reason, at any time. Performing good works and “doing and saying ma’at,” while of value to society, did not stave off mishap and misfortune. The only way to combat mishap and misfortune was to sue the Gods for protection, and / or use heka to harness cosmogonic powers for one’s own benefit. (Assmann, 239) The Gods, being fallible beings like humans, did not always come through for Their mortal supplicants, and so supplicants had to take matters into their own hands through the use of heka.

Heka was also intertwined with the healing arts in Ancient Egyptian society. Doctors and surgeons would almost always perform heka on their patients in conjunction with what we Moderns would consider more advanced and practical medical and surgical treatments. These disciplines were instructed by the same religious institution, so there was no concept of heka being “beyond the sanction of the State.” As a result, heka was well-established within Ancient Egyptian society. (Pinch, 52)

The “irreverence” and “irreligiosity” that are qualifiers for the Western socioanthropological definition of “magic” do not apply to heka. Within heka, it was standard religious practice (since heka is inherently religious) to assume the identity of the Gods, fight other Gods, and overcome other Gods in order to achieve one’s aims or ensure Cosmic equilibrium. We see this in Utterances 273 and 274 of the Pyramid Texts, a section known as “The Cannibal Hymn,” wherein the “Osiris” (deceased person) King Unas becomes “the bull of heaven” and devours Gods in order to absorb Their heka and strengthen himself, ensuring his safe passage through the Duat and elevation to the Heavens. (Ritner et al., 197)

Heka was, and is, also a highly deceptive art, and even this aspect of it seems to have been accepted by the Ancient Egyptians with open arms. We see this quite clearly and frequently throughout funerary texts which list spells and prescribe related amulets that protect the utterer from divulging the dark, dirty secrets of his or her heart, so that the utterer may pass the final trial in the Hall of Two Truths unscathed. The 42 Negative Confessions which come into play before the utterer reaches the Hall of Two Truths to have his or her heart weighed against the feather of ma’at are not utterances of explicit truth, either. No one is that pure, and the Egyptians were well aware of the flaws inherent within humankind. As per their understanding of the Duat, they knew that they would not likely survive the Otherworldly ordeal if they attempted to rely on the purity of their soul alone, without the aid of heka. These heka texts existed for the explicit purpose of negating one’s own flaws — if one could afford the luxury of these Otherworldly “cheat sheets.” The 42 Negative Confessions were a series of “magical” lies, which, when uttered correctly at the appropriate times to the appropriate Gods and guardians, allowed the deceased person to make his or her way past all the terrible obstacles to be faced within the Duat, so that the individual could successfully transform into an Akh and achieve Paradise.

In heka, what one utters does not have to be categorically true. The rhetoric of the utterance creates maps to truth when truth is absent. Through perception — sia – the mind would design an idea (or the heart, as the Egyptians saw the ib as the seat of human emotion and thought-force, as well as a chief component of the soul). Through force of Will and reasoned, thoughtful rhetoric, this design would be brought to life and made true — hu – so that the design of the mind / heart would be accomplished as desired. (Karshner, 52, 58)

Through heka, what was once and would otherwise be an untruth becomes undeniable truth. By saying “I am pure,” the individual has become pure. By saying “I have not transgressed . . . ” regardless of whether or not the utterer has actually committed any given offense, the utterer has established his or her indisputable innocence. Through heka, uncertainty is converted into meaningful action and truth.

THE GODS OF HEKA AND THEIR SERVANTS

There was never any one, sole deity “in charge” of heka. As stated previously, heka is an innate power that all articulate beings have access to, and tap into virtually all the time — whether with explicit intention or by mishap.

While all Gods have access to and are proficient in the art of heka, some are more well-known for it than others. It would be impossible to name Them all, as there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Egyptian Gods.

My personal icon of the God Djehuty.

My icon of Djehuty. Photo © Sarduriur Freydis Sverresdatter.

Most recognizable among Them is the God Djehuty (Thoth). Djehuty is most commonly known as “the God of Wisdom and Writing,” though He has hundreds of varied functions — not all of them benign and “bookish.” Rhetoric, which comes in the form of both verbal utterance and tangible writing, is one of the central principles, manifestations, and tools of heka, and is within Djehuty’s jurisdiction. The association is therefore a natural one. Djehuty is also known as a God of heka due to His superior skill in the healing arts, in addition to His warlike capacity. (Jackson, 100 – 6, 115 – 120, 123) Divine aggression and curses — particularly execrations against malevolent forces and disorderly individuals — it must be remembered, were also part and parcel of upholding ma’at.

Statuette of Tutu Third Intermediate Period, Dynasty 21/25, ca. 1070-664 BCE Bronze, 22.2 x 16.5 x 3.6 cm (8 1/2 x 6 1/2 x 1 1/4 in.) Gift of Henry H. Getty, Charles L. Hutchinson, and Robert H. Fleming, Art Institute of Chicao #1894.257 Photo © Joan Ann Lansberry. Image source.

Bronze statuette of Tutu,
Third Intermediate Period, Dynasty XXI – XXV, ca. 1070-664 BCE. Art Institute of Chicago. Photo © Joan Ann Lansberry. Image source.

Ra and all His iru, naturally, were also very closely associated with the art of heka. Heka scrolls, among medical and astronomical scrolls, were housed in what were known as “Houses of Life,” attached to larger temple complexes, and these were essentially libraries, scriptoriums, and Universities all wrapped up into one institution. The scrolls that were kept, read, and written there were said to be emanations of the Sun God Ra. (Pinch, 51, 64)

Bes is a God proficient in heka that commoners petitioned the most frequently, for a whole variety of reasons, but especially in regard to protection for the pregnant, mothers, and children. The Goddess Aset has an incarnation Whose name is Weret-Hekau, which roughly translates to “Great Proficient of Heka,” and is renown for Her heka-exploits in myth and folklore throughout Egyptian History. Gods such as Yinepu (Anubis) and Set, the slayer of Apep and Yamm and an exhaustive list of malevolent beings, are also known for Their skill in the art. A God Who predates the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods but became popular during those times, Tutu (Tithoes), is often though not always artistically represented in a similar fashion to the God Heka, possessing many heads and other strange characteristics. His “primary body” is that of an androsphinx. He is referred to, among an exhaustive list of epithets, as “The One Who Keeps Enemies at a Distance,” and is the highly-approachable leader of an army of Divine emissaries capable of interceding on behalf of mortals, protecting them from malevolent spirits and Gods. (Pinch, 36)

Heka (with a capital “H”), however, is the Divine, articulate personification of heka. He is shown as the composite of all Gods, demonstrating the multiversality and permeating qualities of the power He represents. Heka was worshiped as a Primordial God at Iunu/On (Heliopolis), Men-nefer (Memphis), and Iunyt/Ta-senet (Esna), but He was not the principle God of any of these sites. (Pinch, 52) The first mentions we see of the priests of the God Heka come from around 2400 BCE. During the third and early second millennia BCE, most priests were only part-time. They served in temples for about one month out of four, and spent the rest of the year pursuing other trades. (Pinch, 52)

Not all hekau were priests of the God Heka. As mentioned repeatedly throughout this article, all Egyptian cults possessed priests who performed heka, as part of duty to ensure the maintenance of Creation and attendance to the needs of the Gods. It was part of their identity and their intrinsic function. “Hekau” was, and is, a general title applied to those who practiced heka, regardless of priestly status. Titles such as “Chief Lector Priest” and “Hekau of the House of Life,” however, denoted a higher station than “hekau” did. Chief Lector Priests and Hekau of the House of Life were specialists in ritual heka. Ritual heka was conducted, of course, within temple sanctuaries for the sake of the cult, the God(s) of the cult, the State (embodied by the Pharaoh), and the Cosmos itself. (Pinch, 52)

WHICH CAME FIRST, THE GOOSE OR THE EGG?

One of the numerous and seldom-addressed ontological dilemmas Modern Kemetics are faced with is whether heka existed in Uncreation, or in other words, before any of the Gods existed, or if the Gods caused heka to exist when They came into existence.

Some argue that heka — a Divinely-sanctioned force that initiated, permeated, and sustained existence itself, to refer back to Ritner’s definition as corroborated by Karshner’s and Assmann’s views — had to have existed before the Gods within the Primaeval Waters of Nun, or else the Gods would not have had that self-same power to create and establish Themselves within the Creation They made for Themselves.

I claim that in order for heka to be a Divinely-sactioned power, firstly, the Divine had to exist in its own articulate form. Heka has to be articulated in order to have effect. This the Uncreated could not and cannot do, possessing many of the qualities of non-being (though it must be understood that the Nun was and is not total “not-anything”): formlessness; absence of light; absence of matter; absence of sound; absence of movement; absence of need; absence of change. Secondly, I claim that in order for heka to exist and be used, there must be Will, there must be cosmological necessity (meaning, something must require the sustaining power of heka in order for heka to exist), and there must be action — none of which the Uncreated intrinsically possesses nor has any need for, being a state antithetical to that of Creation and all created things. The Nun is indeed limitless potential, and in some mythic portrayals is even self-aware (consciousness is one of the very few existential attributes the Nun possesses), but actualization of potential is not possible without Will and the enforcement of Will. Beings, objects, and forces cannot be ascribed qualities of being, much less intrinsically possess them, without action. The Nun does not itself act or create or enforce its Will, since it has none and no way to do so. It is a passive abyss. The Gods, on the other hand, are the diametrical opposites of passivity. Ergo, when the first God willed Himself into existence from the Primaeval Waters of Nun (insert preferred regional God and allied cosmology here), He created and necessitated the existence of heka. Heka did not exist in its own form before that precise moment, and did not have a specific need and purpose (qualities of being) before that precise moment.

______________________________________________________________________

WORKS CITED

Assmann, Jan. The Mind of Egypt — History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. Translated by Andrew Jenkins. New York : Metropolitan Books, 2002.

Jackson, Lesley. Thoth : The History of the Ancient Egyptian God of Wisdom. London : Avalonia Books, 2011.

Karshner, Edward. “Thought, Utterance, Power : Toward a Rhetoric of Magic.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol 44 Issue 1 (pp 52 – 71). Penn State University Press, 2011. Online. Date of access: May 14, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0052 .

Ogden, Daniel. Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds — A Sourcebook. Oxford : Oxford University Press Inc, 2002.

Pinch, Geraldine. Magic in Ancient Egypt. Revised Edition. Austin : University of Texas Press, 2010.

Ritner et al. The Ancient Gods Speak — A Guide to Egyptian Religion. Edited by Donald B. Redford. New York : Oxford Univeristy Press Inc, 2002.

_______________________________________________________________________

For more articles on this topic from other Kemetics, please click the image above.

For more articles on this topic from other Kemetics, please click the image above.


Surely You Jest

0
0

I’ve been trying to hold my tongue in regard to the ongoing, polarizing firefight over the worship of fictitious superheroes as objects of hero-cult, and the incorporation of pop culture elements into Modern Polytheism. My attempts are now proven to have been in vain. I will say only this and then nothing more on the subject:

If one cannot handle being told one’s practice is foolish and that one’s beliefs may, in fact, be (very) wrong, one has absolutely no business in religion, and one should not presume to theologize. We can’t all be correct, all the time, much less at the same time. Not all beliefs and practices can be valid, much less equally valid. Since none of us has Divine parallax, none of us can know beyond every conceivable shadow of doubt which beliefs and practices possess some degree of validity and which ones possess absolutely none. Until our inevitable deaths, presumably — even then, no particular outcome is guaranteed. We can only grasp at textures in the dark and hope to grip the tail of Truth. We must accept the strong possibility that many of us are at any given time engaging in some manner of batshittery — which should be a given when Polytheists center their entire worlds around things so nebulous and elusive as Numina, but apparently many of you forget this, or have never grasped this.

I don’t expect all of my readers to be familiar with the history and nature of Theology, but trust in me when I tell you that as a sub-discipline of Philosophy and Logic, it is an unforgiving science wherein personal feelings and desires are of no concern (though it needs to be underscored that there is a specific standard of decorum, both rhetorical and social, by which participants are expected to conduct themselves). It is not for the weak of heart and the insecure, it is not for those who cannot effectively reason, and it was certainly never designed with the intention of gratifying the likes of hypersensitive “social justice warriors” who are “triggered” into fits of petulant indignation by virtually everything under the sun.

It is necessary that people be treated with respect, but not all ideas and practices merit the respect afforded to human beings. Criticizing the validity of the ideas and practices an individual maintains is not an ad hominem attack on the individual who maintains them. Attempting to threaten or bully an individual over ideological differences or assassinate an individual’s personal credibility and character, however, qualifies as ad hominem. There is a massive difference between the two, and you are responsible for understanding this difference and reacting appropriately.

Now, let us kindly put this childishness to bed and get back to doing what is important for the community at large, shall we? This is not the first time, nor shall it be the last, that any of us will be met with disagreement and told we’re wrong about something. This is not the first time, nor shall it be the last, that anyone has been going about something the wrong way.

Use this energy for something more productive, for the love of the Gods.


You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

0
0

So, remember when I said I was going to say one little thing and then nothing else on the issue currently causing strife within the Polytheist community? (As if we didn’t already have enough unnecessary divisiveness going on?)

Yeah . . . I lied. I’d say I’m sorry, but “sorry” doesn’t mean a whole lot when I go right on doing what I told everyone I wasn’t going to do.

What prompted me to not keep holding my tongue? A conversation with friends and a stranger over this piece that Gwen Idasfotri wrote, in conjunction with a few related conversations on the subject with friends and acquaintances on different social media platforms. All of these people I have respect for as people, and for those who are my friends, as friends (who are also quite intelligent, of that there is no doubt), but I can’t agree with their not-quite-established premises on the existence and worshipability of egregori, and the incorporation of popular culture elements into belief structures and practice  — I’ll get to my reasoning on that in a little while. Or a long while. I have quite a few things to say.

First, I’d like to address a few things that caught my eye with regard to Gwen’s piece.

“THERE ARE NO SELF-CONSCIOUSLY FICTIONAL WORKS OF LITERATURE IN THE ANCIENT WORD”

As much as I’m sure both of us would like it to be so, that statement isn’t expressly true. And not just of the Ancient word — definitely the Medieval word, and the Modern word too.

Let’s go with an example or two of “the Ancient word” to start, and then a Medieval example, since we Moderns are all abundantly aware of the fictions present in our own time.

The Contendings of Heru and Set is a prime example of a work of literature that probably wasn’t “[a] story [that] was meant to be emotionally/spiritually/ontologically relevant, to urge changes in behavior, [and] to deepen people’s relationships with the more-than-human world.” It was “true” in the sense of symbolically talking about real social issues and injustices of the time, it is “true” in the sense that “this text literally exists,” but it wasn’t “true” in a liturgical/religious sense.

The nature of the behavior of the Gods in The Contendings was completely at odds with the way the speech and conduct of the Gods was portrayed by both State and regional theologies during the Ramesside Era, namely during the reign of Ramses V, around the time this story was penned. In his introduction to his translation of The Contendings, E. F. Wente noted that “the behavior of the great Gods is at points so shocking that it is hard to imagine that no humor was intended.” (Simpson, 108) While humor is an important tool of instruction in Modern times, and while we may find many aspects of Ancient Egyptian religion “funny,” it was probably not considered part of formal belief and religion and their instruction to the Ancient Egyptians. Inscriptions on temple walls demonstrate a wide discrepancy between the two styles of narrative. In temple inscriptions, the speech of the Gods is highly formal, and Their behavior best described as “buttoned-up.” In The Contendings, the God Set and His supporters, among Them the Sun God Ra, are portrayed as impotent, indecisive, mismanaging buffoons. One should take note that Set was one of the more highly esteemed Gods of the Ramesside Kings; this is an important detail.

The story may have likely been reflective of common attitudes toward the Government at that time, and the contempt and frustration people felt toward the ruling class. Egyptologist of Oxford University and Cambridge University Geraldine Pinch states “it is most likely that criticism in the text is aimed at the King and his representatives who chose to identify themselves with the Sun God and His council of advisory deities.” (79) Non-royal Egyptians had no open outlets for protest and dissension against the injustices of their time, such as the inordinate delay of legal cases by the Ancient Egyptian justice system which are indirectly criticized through Heru-sa-Aset’s complaint in the story. (Pinch, 83) For the individual who wrote this story (since the overwhelming majority of people were illiterate, and only an educated person of one of the higher tiers of society could’ve had the skills to create this), this story served the purpose, whether in whole or in part, of being political diatribe, not holy writ with inherent spiritual or religious significance, despite the fact that it contains elements from established myths of earlier periods from various regions. The fact that the Gods were the characters in this story did not, and does not, make the story inherently spiritual or religious, any more than it can be assumed Marvel’s Thor was written by its creators with the intention of serving any liturgical/theological purpose.

Homosexuality was considered taboo beyond belief by the Ancient Egyptians, and yet Set and Heru-sa-Aset are shown engaging in it within the tale — Set walking away with the entirety of the humiliation, since He was the one Who had been dominated and emasculated. Not only was Set raped and outsmarted by another male; He was raped and outsmarted by a younger male, reinforcing Set’s weakness and inadequacy as a masculine male and as a legitimate leader. (Manniche, 22) I ask my audience to recall now that Set is one of the Ramesside Kings’ tutelary Gods, and to think about what Set’s being dishonored infers about the quality and popularity of the leadership at the time.

To the Ancient Egyptians, homosexuals, while acknowledged to exist, were believed to be both figures of mockery and individuals incapable of genuine love. We see similar motifs in other pieces of Ancient Egyptian folklore, such as The Tale of Neferkare and the General Sasenet, the comical story of a secret affair between a King and his male lover. Instances of intimate or consensual homosexual relationships such as that present within The Tale of Neferkare and the General Sasenet, along with the homosexual passivity demonstrated by Set in The Contendings, were largely condemned by religious texts as an absurd and aberrant pursuit of inappropriate sexual desire. (Myśliwiec, 33) And what the Ancient Egyptians considered weakness and foolishness inherent within homosexual passivity, such as that displayed within The Contendings by the God Set, was certainly not Godly behavior. To portray any person, much less a God, in such a degenerate act, while perhaps amusing, was greatly insulting within the context of formal religion and practice at the time. The Contendings wasn’t somehow designed to “deepen people’s relationships with the more-than-human world.” Such portrayals, while perhaps not at odds with Modern sensibilities, were at odds with Ancient Egyptian religious and social sensibilities. Such portrayals incited derisive laughter and condemnation among Ancient Egyptians, not transcendent understanding of the soul, the Gods, and the Multiverse.

It should be apparent by now that this particular work of literature was probably not intended for liturgical/theological instruction, and this point is further underscored by the fact that the work was not written in the liturgical language of classic Middle Egyptian. Rather, it was written in the vernacular language of the Late New Kingdom Period. (Pinch, 79) It should also be reiterated that the rate of literacy was abysmally low throughout Ancient Egyptian History, not just during the Ramesside Era, though the Old Kingdom Period boasted the lowest estimated literacy rate: anywhere from 1% — 10% of the Egyptian population, versus the approximate 80% — 90% literacy rate many Western nations are accustomed to now, to put things into perspective. (Piccione, 1995) The literacy rate of the New Kingdom Period was not a great deal higher than the Old Kingdom Period rate. The likelihood of this work inspiring any form of piety at the time it was written is suspect.

Now, let us trek on over to Medieval Europe for further elucidation.

Professor Emeritus of Folkloristics at the University of Iceland, Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson, makes an important distinction that Manniche, Myśliwiec, Pinch, and Wente all hint at but don’t say as clearly. Myths are stories which possess liturgical/theological value as well as cultural identity value. Folklore, on the other hand, while it certainly has cultural identity value, has essentially no liturgical/theological value. When folklore does approach belief, it usually discusses superstition rather than piety and formal religion. Aðalsteinsson best illustrates this in his discussion of Snorri Sturluson’s Prose Edda:

“The folktale motifs in Snorri’s [Prose Edda] deserve particular attention. They show how early the mythology of Old Norse religion was infiltrated by folklore motifs. This was no more than might be expected once the myths were no longer regarded as holy and true, while continuing to be an element of cultural entertainment. But the blending of myths with folktale motifs means that we must move with caution when investigating this material. Special care must be taken not to associate too readily the original mythology of Eddic poems with the material in Snorri’s Prose Edda, which has been infiltrated with folklore motifs. We should in all seriousness be wary of following various scholars who have accepted folklore in Snorri’s Prose Edda as a simple addition to the material of Vǫluspá.”

(Aðalsteinsson, 131 – 2)

This is, of course, to say nothing of the fact that skalds in Medieval Scandinavian societies and chroniclers and senachie in other Medieval societies could be bought off to spin total fictions about their patrons in order to falsely inflate their legitimacy (Trevor-Roper, 9 – 19); documents that are in every sense of the word false, such as “The Donation of Constantine;” and the total lack of verifiable truth in some accounts and the borrowing from unrelated chronicles, as was done by Dudo in his biography of Rollo of Normandy. Medieval Historians know, just as Medieval people knew, that these were false accounts. If and when they were accepted by society at large, they were accepted almost entirely for political reasons by the parties such forgeries benefited, not because of any inherent or higher “truth.”

In conclusion, yes, there were intentionally fictionalized stories and accounts. While I only gave a few examples from Ancient Egypt and Medieval Europe, it doesn’t take a large or difficult amount of research to compile veritably countless examples which reinforce this point. There were stories that were not regarded as “true” at any given point in time, much less as stories “meant to be emotionally/spiritually/ontologically relevant, to urge changes in behavior, [and] to deepen people’s relationships with the more-than-human world.” There were stories that were “just stories” in the Ancient and Medieval worlds, just as there are stories that are “just stories” today.

As the old adage goes, “sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”

“THE TARGET OF WORSHIP IS ALWAYS SOMETHING GENUINE. ACTS OF WORSHIP ARE ALWAYS GENUINE.”

Speaking in absolutes is often dangerous and quite frequently ends in messy false statements. One famous example that illustrates the inherent flaws contained within absolute statements comes from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, when he discusses the self-evident nature of Truth:

Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition “Truth does not exist” is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth.

Gwen’s absolute focuses on what is “genuine.” “Genuine” is a nebulous concept. What exactly do we mean by “genuine,” here? “Genuine” can mean any number of things. “Genuine” can mean “correctness.” It can mean “sincerity.” It can mean “permissibility.” It can mean “validity.” It can mean “truth” (which is also a horribly nebulous concept). It can mean “having the qualities and value claimed.”

A friend of mine who happens to support the use of popular culture elements and the tenability of egregori made a very good series of points about the confusion arising from this use of “genuine” when we were discussing the issue on Facebook. She wrote:

“Does the anti-gay, anti-woman Christian genuinely believe that his belief and way of life is for the best? Obviously, or he wouldn’t fight so hard to protect his right to be an asshole. ‘Genuine’ doesn’t mean it’s valuable to anyone else, or even to humanity at large. Just that it is honestly believed or real to the person doing the act of worship. ‘Genuine’ doesn’t mean ‘I agree’ or ‘for the greater good.’ An act committed as an act of worship is genuine to the person doing it, even if it’s heinous to the rest of society, isn’t it? While all acts might technically be genuine, that doesn’t imply that they are healthy, advisable, or in your best interest. Sincerity doesn’t automatically mean sanity. I have no problem with having laws that regulate how we express our acts of worship when those expressions interfere with the free will of others. Hence, do what thou wilt, and enjoy your time in prison if you choose to express your innate worshipful nature via murder or torture, you know?”

The impression I’m getting from Gwen’s article and other articles of similar conviction — and I might very well be misunderstanding Gwen’s intended point in particular. Please do forgive me if I am wrong — is that people are conflating “acceptable” and “permissible” with “genuine,” and an obligation for dissenters to acknowledge what is asserted but not proven.

In other words, “my belief/practice/ideology is genuine, therefore it is permissible and you must accept the validity of my belief/practice/ideology.

If that is the case, it is not categorically true. Neither in informal terms nor by way of rhetorical Logic.

Basically, we arrive at truth and falsehood through logical rhetoric, since we’re working with abstracts rather than strictly tangible, quantitative, empirical facts and evidence that can be played around with in a laboratory.

This is a case of “if/then.”

I’m going to use the homophobia and racism promoted by some religions as an extreme example. DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT SUGGESTING GWEN OR ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS HER STANCE IS A HOMOPHOBE OR RACIST. THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. Homophobia and racism are examples of beliefs and practices which homophobes and racists feel are genuine and true, but the overwhelming majority of society, as well as the scientific community, have since established are not genuine and true. Just because something exists does not mean it is explicitly genuine and true, much less valid and permissible.

If all beliefs and practices asserted to be genuine are in fact genuine as well as permissible and valid, as I believe Gwen’s article implies, then the premises of beliefs/practices/ideologies such as racism and homophobia, since they fall under the category of “ALL,” are also valid.

If we establish that certain beliefs/practices/ideologies are not genuine, valid, and permissible, such as racism and homophobia extant within many world religions, the statement “ALL acts of worship are genuine” is a false statement. Why? Because by saying “these beliefs/practices/ideologies over here are wrong, and these over here are more likely to be right,” we are establishing the existence of an external universal standard. We are establishing exceptions, and exceptions to something that asserts “ALL” undermines that assertion completely. It is no longer “ALL,” and the absolute statement becomes absolutely false.

By stating that such beliefs/practices/ideologies such as racism and homophobia within religion are not genuine, permissible, and valid, we are establishing that, yes, there are right ways to do things, and wrong ways to do things. Yes, there is an external universal standard that differentiates right/wrong, correct/incorrect, valid/invalid, genuine/not-genuine, and so on. We are establishing that there is simply no “anything goes” principle at work, as any form of relativism maintains.

And while racism and homophobia are rather extreme examples of exception, they are certainly not the only ones, and this premise extends far beyond them. This applies to all beliefs, practices, and ideologies — that there are “genuine, permissible, and valid” ones, that there are ones which are not, and that there is an external universal standard which determines which is which.

In regard to “ALL targets of worship are genuine,” we encounter the same problem of ambiguity of meaning, and the same inherent problem presented by an absolute statement. Say that someone takes up the worship of a disease, such as tuberculosis, cholera, or dysentery. These diseases are, in fact, objectively real. In this sense, they are “genuine.” But is it valid to worship a disease? Is it permissible to worship a disease? Can a disease even receive worship? Is such a practice/target of worship “genuine” in this sense? This issue of what “genuine” is, means, and implies raises more questions than it settles.

 GETTING TO THE POINT

It’s been established that this is not about comic books, videogames, television shows, and fandoms in and of themselves. Many of those who incorporate egregori into their personal practice — the ones I’ve spoken with, at least — have asserted that they’re not out to devalue “organic” Gods and Spirits and other Powers. We’re against the idea of labeling the Gods as fictitious and inferior to man-made constructs, at least. It should already be established that, whether right or wrong in their assertions and assumptions, people who go around worshiping egregori and incorporating popular culture elements into their practice are not going to bring about the ultimate destruction of Polytheism, or initiate Ragnarök (which I already criticize the validity of, haaa), or cause Apep to swallow the Solar Barque, or anything of the sort. They’re not a real and imminent threat to my own beliefs and way of life, or anyone else’s. I worry somewhat that the worship of fictitious characters and the incorporation of popular culture elements into Polytheism will register as “bad P.R.” But, society already thinks we’re insane no matter what we say or do, so, it might not make that much difference in the end. I cannot say.

I certainly don’t agree with their belief in the concept of egregori. I find the belief and practice largely unfounded — and on a personal level, a big part of me thinks it’s silly — since I personally have not seen a convincing, sound logical argument asserting the tenable possibility of the existence and validity of egregori in particular. I personally maintain that while stories and games and fandoms have cultural meaning, and while Divine beings can assume virtually any form They choose when it suits Them : stories/games/fandoms do not intrinsically possess religious meaning or inherent truth, and these forms do not possess inherent, independent Divinity that is capable of receiving worship on its own. However, asserting “I think it, therefore it exists” isn’t a substantive enough argument for the genuineness, validity, and permissibility of a belief or practice.

It is good that a number of people are realizing now that, “hmm, I’m too emotionally invested in this to consider this rationally. I’m going to take a step back and collect my thoughts. I’ll come back to this later with a fresher, calmer mind.” There are many who still need to do this, though they may not want to admit it, to themselves or anyone else. I mean, no one wants to be that guy. Having been that guy before, far more than just once, I can say with absolute certitude that it’s not the end of the world, and people will not hate you forever. It’s just a matter of finding a rational center, coming back with a level head and open ears, and striving to be civil.

While people are going to their corners to cool off and think matters through, I would like to suggest that people begin to explore this issue properly. What exactly do I mean by that? I am convinced that there are specific questions that need asking and answering — civilly and rationally, through the use of logical rhetoric — if anyone is going to arrive at a productive end with this controversy:

  • What are the qualities/properties of being? What are the qualities/properties of non-being, if we can even define them?
  • What are Forms and Concepts? What roles and influences, if any, do they have?
  • How are these qualities/properties acquired and maintained? Under what conditions? By what standards? How do we know?
  • How do beings come into existence, and what is the origin of being? What, where, when, why, and how?
  • Are the Forms and Concepts which ascribe haecceity (thisness) and quiddity (whatness) to things and beings themselves independent things and beings because they have the power to ascribe qualities/properties? Do they actually have the intrinsic power to ascribe them? If not, who/what does? Does anything?
  • Do qualities/properties even objectively exist? (Problem of Universals)
  • What is consciousness? What can or cannot possess consciousness? What capability and independence does consciousness have, if any? Can a part of any being’s consciousness break away from itself and become its own consciousness? Does all consciousness belong to itself, ergo all consciousness is incapable of separating a part of itself from itself? How and from what do we arrive at any logical conclusion to these questions?
  • What is worship? What does worshiping an entity/non-entity actually do? What criteria make an entity/non-entity capable of receiving worship?

And I’m sure there are a few I missed. Hopefully my readers get the gist of the questions I listed and can craft relevant questions from there.

These questions aren’t going to be answered overnight. A lot of this is Philosophy 101 material, and a lot of this is a colossal mindfuck that will take a lot of time, a lot of homework, and a lot of hair-tearing to get through. We must start at square one, essentially reinvent the wheel, if we’re going to bring everyone up to speed and get this controversy closer to a rational resolution. Granted, of course, that those involved in this debacle legitimately care enough to do the work this task requires. Some do legitimately care and will make great strides for evolving theologies and philosophies within Modern Polytheism. Some people will just shove sticks up their asses and whine about it because they enjoy having sticks up their asses and whining about things. Me? I want to see the community learn how to be productive instead of self-sabotaging and anti-intellectual.

There is, of course, no guarantee that the use of logical rhetoric will make the case for egregori any more legitimate or any more accepted by the overarching Polytheist community than the subject is now. There likely will not be any unanimous resolution, given that the answers to these and similar philosophical questions will vary wildly on the bases of religious denomination, adherence to “Hard Polytheism” or “Soft Polytheism,” and other qualifiers. Not all theologies are the same, so not all the answers are going to be the same between them. Camps will arise as a result — as with any theory or set of theories, especially those addressing intangible abstracts whose truths (if any) cannot be arrived at through quantitative experimentation in a laboratory. Although, even the “hard sciences” aren’t immune to such entrenchment, as we are all well aware. Which camps will be logically closer to ascertaining “truth,” only time will tell, if time tells anything at all. There are camps now, true, but they are disordered and reactionary. The majority of them don’t have any coherent, properly reasoned logical arguments that effectively justify their positions.

We simply may not have enough minds with enough competence and knowledge in the realm of Philosophy and Logic to do it (I sincerely question my own capability in the matter, to be completely honest). But, if any of us are going to accomplish this with any semblance of success, we have to do this the proper way, as the esteemed disciplines of Logic and Philosophy demand. The way most of the ongoing conversations relating to this controversy are being conducted at present is . . . very painful to observe, to put it kindly.

To beat a dead horse further, I’m personally not of the mind to accept the possibility of egregori, as matters currently stand. I’m not “gung-ho” about using popular culture and fiction as religious framework. If others want to do so, that’s their prerogative and I won’t try to bully anyone out of it. In the event that those in belief of their existence and in favor of their use are able to present a reasoned logical argument asserting their philosophical validity, while I probably won’t personally incorporate these elements into my belief structure/practice, I will accept the premises as at least tenable, and cede that I was mistaken. But only when presented with a body of reasoned logical statements, and not an instant before.

WORKS CITED

Aðalsteinsson, Jón Hnefill. A Piece of Horse Liver — Myth, Ritual, and Folklore in Old Icelandic Sources. Translated by Terry Gunnel and Joan Turville-Petre. Reykjavík : Háskólaútgáfan Félgasvísindastofunn, 1998.

Manniche, Lise. Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt. New York : Columbia University Press, 1987.

Myśliwiec, Karol, and Geoffrey Packer. Eros on the Nile. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 2004.

Piccione, Peter A. “Excursis III: The Status of Women in Ancient Egyptian Society.” 1995. Web. http://web.archive.org/web/19970630114400/http://www.library.nwu.edu/class/history/B94/B94women.html. Date of access : May 21, 2013.

Pinch, Geraldine. Egyptian Myth — A Very Short Introduction. New York : Oxford University Press, 2004.

Simpson, W. K. (ed.) The Literature of Ancient Egypt. London : New Haven and London, 1972.

Trevor-Roper, Hugh. The Invention of Scotland — Myth and History. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2008.


On “Academic Elitism” and the Importance of Pearls

0
0

969676_598543733499975_121083493_n

American Clinical Neurologist Dr. Steven Novella is probably referring to his field of Medicine, but Philosophy and Theology are also sciences — not “hard sciences” like Medicine, but sciences all the same — hinged upon Logic and Reason. Despite popular misconception, religious belief systems and ethical systems are also determined and evaluated similarly. Whether one’s systems are old or new, orthodox or heterodox, Divinely-inspired or man-made, they aren’t somehow exempt from questioning and scrutiny.

It’s not enough to assert and believe that something “just works.” That’s an incomplete picture that doesn’t tell us much of anything. It is just as vital to understand how and why something works, whether it’s the human liver, ma’at, the engine of an F-18, the Laws of Physics, parṣū . . . or anything, really.

Somehow, asking people to cite their sources and use rational and logical rather than emotional reasoning to explain or defend their views is an “unreasonable” demand of “academic elitism.” Logic and Reason are built-in conventions of all rational thought and speech. We use them in everyday life. Or rather, we all possess the cognition and ability, and we should employ them in everyday life, but we don’t always apply ourselves as we should. These faculties and disciplines are not on some Hermetically-sealed, “inaccessible” level that people who didn’t go to Yale or Oxford can’t possibly access, understand, or get involved in.

Yes, a lot of the jargon is confusing and takes time to understand. A good deal of it is unavoidable. Hence why I try to leave the bulk of it out when I can, and take pains to explain any and all jargon when I can’t. Every discipline has its own unique language, because every discipline has its own ideas unique to it. Everyday religion and ethics are no exception (I mean, look at concepts like Egyptian ma’at and Akkadian parṣū, which have no one-word translations that aren’t gross oversimplifications). Much of it makes my eyes glaze over sometimes, too, and I have a smidgen of background. Even less than a smidgen, compared to many of the people I’ve gone to school with and have been taught by. When any of them used reasoning which rendered my own obsolete and irrelevant, or used words I didn’t quite understand, did that make any of them “elitist?” No. It meant, and means, that I have more learning to do. The responsibility is mine and mine alone to do that learning, and be tried by my peers when I submit material. No one emerged from the womb knowing these things, and no one knows everything. Knowledge must be actively sought and tested; it is given freely to no one. It’s not learning that I nor anyone else necessarily needs a University for (though it sometimes helps). There are such things as public libraries, online databases, and asking others for help*. I have a brain and literacy skills: I have no excuse not to use them and learn. If I don’t use my brain and literacy skills, I have only myself to blame for the shortcomings which result from my lack of effort.

Not everyone is interested in pursuing Philosophy and Theology — or any other discipline, really — as the conventions of reasoned thought and speech require. Some simply want to say and do as they please without having to be accountable, intellectually or otherwise, in any given situation over any given issue. But there is a profound difference between “not interested” and “not capable.” Regardless of whether or not someone is “interested” in these conventions, these rules, they still apply to everyone involved.

I am not moved to guilt or sympathy by whines of “academic elitism.” All that complaint really says is, “I can’t stand it that these things don’t come to me instantly and without effort. I don’t want the rules to apply to me. I don’t want to be challenged. I want to be accepted as being right all the time, even and especially when I’m not.” Not only is such a dismissive attitude seething with self-entitlement and anti-intellectualism; that’s just not how the world works.

Someone very wise told me: “If you are not willing to dive into the sea for oysters, you will have no pearls. Oysters do not make pearls overnight or perfectly. Sometimes you will come up empty-handed. But if you want those pearls, you must keep diving.”


Why Reconstructionism Is Not Its Own Justification

0
0

For those who don’t know, Reconstructionist Polytheism is a category of Polytheism which strives to recreate pre-Christian religions as closely as possible, based on surviving information regarding beliefs, religious practices, and social customs. Reconstructionist Polytheists tend to maintain that their form of religion and all its subsequent beliefs and practices are more “true” and “valid” than other types of Polytheism, because Reconstructionist Polytheism adheres most closely to tradition.

ARGUMENT — Simply because a belief or practice is established as “traditional”/”historical” does not mean it is also ethically valid and permissible. Belief may be genuine, in that the believer is certain of his/her own convictions, and these convictions may have historical precedent, but the convictions themselves may not be objectively, ethically permissible and valid.

EXAMPLE — Many cultures, pre-Monotheist and Monotheist alike, have engaged in the practice of slavery. Slavery is an institution thousands of years old. “Underground” slave-trades still exist today. Does the age and establishment of slavery make slavery objectively, ethically permissible and valid?

For the sake of argument, we accept that all human beings have equal access to a set standard of “human rights,” and have free will. Slavery violates the rights and free will all human beings possess and are entitled to. If a religion or society professes to be free and equal (Just), and consents to the existence of the individual free will of every human being, it cannot ethically engage in the enslavement of other human beings, regardless of who those human beings are.

This, of course, begs the question as to whether or not “human rights” are in fact “Just,” and what “Just” actually means. But if “human rights” are in fact “Just” and coincide with “True Justice” (going by the premise of the “external ethic”), slavery is incompatible. If slavery is incompatible with what is objectively “Just,” slavery is not ethically permissible and is not valid.

Discuss.



And Now For Something Completely Different

0
0

Sannion recently posted “Worship Camazotz, not Bruce Wayne,” and I was reminded of a pen and ink drawing I made of Camazotz not that many months ago that I had nearly forgotten.

I apologize for the poor quality of the picture; I took it with my dinosaur of a camera-phone, and the image is a bit warped, since I didn’t bother to cut it from my sketchbook before taking a picture. I also superimposed my blog address over my signature, since it would totally defeat the purpose of writing under an alias I am better known by if people knew my legal name. Plus, that might somewhat compromise my reputation, if someone decided to “out” me as a Polytheist to anyone in the world of higher education, or any other area of the professional sphere I might someday end up in — or worse, negatively impact my husband’s military career. Unfortunately, even in the Modern Western world, religious discrimination is still something of a problem. Especially when people draw terrifying Gods that look like this:

Camazotz

I worship a number of Gods from at least three different cultures — four or five, if we count the deities adopted by both the Ancient Egyptians and the Akkadians from their neighbors throughout their respective histories. Mayan Gods, however, are not among the Gods of my household.

I sometimes have dreams about Gods and other Powers I don’t worship or otherwise know, and I draw or paint Them upon waking. If I remember what They say, if They say anything at all, I write that down in a journal. I can never know whether or not these images and words will come in handy later, whether for myself or someone else.

I have no profound or oracular words to go with this drawing.

I don’t know all that much about Camazotz, or Mayan religion. At best, I can offer only a paltry “Wikipedian” summary (I believe I may have just invented a pejorative term): “He made a cameo appearance in the Popol Wuj and He’s a chthonic bat-deity of night, death, and sacrifice.” Which, if I know anything about religion whatsoever, it’s that pigeonholing one-liners are seldom accurate, whether we’re talking about Gods and Spirits or theological/philosophical concepts. What significance He had to Mesoamerican people, and if He had any cult centers, I haven’t the slightest idea.

In any event, I present Him to you in all my fantastic ignorance. Hopefully someone out there will find this useful, and/or be inspired to write a more detailed history of Him than the open internet currently sees fit to give.


Kemetic Round Table : Shrine Guide — Bringing the Sacred into the Home

0
0
The icon I use for Heru-Wer. Image © Sarduriur Freydis Sverresdatter.

The icon I use for Heru-Wer in my home shrine. Image © Sarduriur Freydis Sverresdatter.

Newcomers to Kemeticism (any Polytheism, really) are very eager to begin exploring budding relationships with newly-discovered deities. Spurred by robust enthusiasm, many delve straight into shrine-building before much of anything else. The shrines of more seasoned devotees are part of what draws many of the curious and the awed to Polytheism in the first place. It is often difficult for the beginner to know where and how to . . . well, begin. So, how exactly does one go about building a shrine that is pleasing, functional, and appropriate?

The answers to this seemingly simple question vary wildly depending upon one’s personal circumstances, religious denomination, and praxical approach. There are many considerations that go into building a shrine. I probably will not cover every conceivable question beginners have, but I will cover the questions and concerns I’ve seen crop up the most frequently on Polytheist fora around the internet, Kemetic and otherwise.

These questions and concerns will be addressed in no particular order from a multi-traditional perspective with a Kemetic (Egyptian) focus. I will not be addressing ancestor shrines here, only deity shrines. Much of what will be spoken of here can be applied to other traditions as well, if one chooses to do so.

1.) Why is a shrine necessary — or is it?

The act of building a shrine isn’t simply an act of arbitrarily declaring a space sacred. It is an act of showing hospitality toward a deity or deities. It says, “I welcome You into my household; I share with You my life and what I own; I give to You as I ask You give to me.”

Shrines also serve as a physical reminder to the devotee of the maintenance his or her relationship with the Gods requires. Honestly, without having shrines to the Gods in my home, I don’t think I’d remember to pray and offer as often as I do. No one is perfect; some of us really need that reminder. Likewise, establishing a shrine is not simply a “one-time thing.” It’s not something any of us does once and then never touches again. It’s the beginning of a long-term commitment. Perhaps it is a poor comparison, but the meaning of a shrine is similar to the symbolism behind a wedding ring. The average devotee isn’t literally marrying the Gods per se, but the devotee is giving Them a gift which, very much like a wedding ring, says “I am committed to You, and You are a priority to me.”

Traditional Egyptian belief maintains that the Gods need the devotion of human beings in order to survive and thrive, just as much as human beings need the Gods and Their works to survive and thrive. Building a shrine can be an expression of the devotion the Gods need, and an act of good will, in return for the Gods’ interest, involvement, and favor. But this is not the only valid expression.

While the shrine is a place where deity and human interact, it is not the only place where this interaction can and does occur. Some of a “less-traditional” persuasion find it more rewarding, not to mention easier, to commune with and honor the Gods out in nature and within the “temple of the mind,” rather than through the construction of “distracting” material shrines and temples. It all ultimately depends upon one’s outlook, personal circumstances, and what the Gods ask of the individual or community.

2.) Are icons necessary? If so, what materials should they be made from?

A limestone fragment of a Sobek statue on display at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Note the humanlike ears carved onto either side of Sobek's head. Photo © Aidan McRae Thomson.

A Middle Kingdom Period limestone fragment of a Sobek statue from the Faiyum on display at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, England. Note the humanlike ears carved onto either side of Sobek’s head. Image © Aidan McRae Thomson.

Traditional Egyptian belief asserts the necessity of religious icons. Icons are spiritual conduits. They are physical representations that help us connect to otherwise numinous and intangible Gods, Whose “true” nature and form is in many ways (though not all) incomprehensible to us mortals. It is the replica of a part of a God’s “layered” soul, which a God can temporarily inhabit in order to receive the benefit of individual offerings and hear the prayers of the people. Incidentally, this is why statues and stelae from Antiquity designed to forward offerings and prayers to the Gods often had the likeness of human ears incorporated into their features.

On another level, icons serve as meditation foci for the devotee. For many, it is much easier to commune with the Gods when there are identifiable symbols and images to latch onto, both in the immediate world and within the mind’s eye. Some do not require any such aides. Likewise, some don’t care for anything even remotely resembling materialist and/or “idolatrous” expression, and therefore keep fairly “empty” shrines. Indeed, the Kemetic Orthodox Temple encourages applicants to begin with an “empty” shrine before having been initiated into the Temple as a Remetj or Shemsu. This way, beginners develop an uncluttered, unbiased ritual approach to the Gods, and to the concept of NTR itself. However, Kemetic Orthodox priests are required to maintain icons in the traditional fashion — praying to, “feeding,” “washing,” and “clothing” the images of the Gods on a daily basis as specific classes of Ancient Egyptian priests once had. Many other Reconstructionist Kemetic religions adhere to this tradition as well.

A gold polymer clay votive I made of the God Amun, since I could neither find nor afford an icon of Him that was suitable.

A small gold polymer clay votive I made of the God Amun in ram form, since I could neither find nor afford an icon of Him that was suitable. I used exactly one brick of Prēmo Sculpey, which costs about 1.75 – 2.50 USD. Image © Sarduriur Freydis Sverresdatter.

Icons can be made from any number of materials. Those who are more traditionally-oriented prefer handmade icons crafted from “natural” materials — polychrome wood (particularly Old World woods such as cedar), cast metals, stone, and earthen clays. Others find it more expedient to use readymade statues, cast in resin, bonded marble (resin mixed with marble dust), cold cast bronze (resin mixed with bronze powder), or molded from polymer clay. In fact, Jeff Cullen makes some pretty remarkable, soulful statuary out of polymer clay.

I personally don’t believe the material matters overmuch, so long as the material is durable, and so long as the sculpt is of quality. I do prefer traditional materials like iron, bronze, and stone, but that can get expensive quite easily. One gets what one pays for, though.

3.) Where should I set up my shrine?

Shrines should not be placed in high-traffic areas, since this increases the potential for mishap resulting in broken sacred objects and disrupted space. Establishing a shrine in a high-traffic area makes prayer and meditation difficult to accomplish. Shrines should also not be established out in the open where others will interfere with the Gods’ space, if it can be avoided — spatial limitations are indeed a hard problem to contend with.

It ought to go without saying that shrines should never be established in bathrooms, where befouling elements accumulate and unclean bodily functions such as urination and defecation occur. The shrine is the seat of the Divine in the home, after all. Since no revived Ancient Polytheism in the West enjoys the benefit of an established religious institution outfitted with a series of well-funded, well-staffed temples that can care for objects of cult as they should be cared for, we provide hospitality to the Gods in our own homes. To place the Gods’ “guest quarters” in the same room as a toilet is more than just a little disrespectful! It is best to think of the Gods as honored guests, because They are: if it wouldn’t be respectful to make a human guest stay there, don’t put the Gods’ shrine there!

Ideally, a shrine should have its own room, if not its own temple, but such an arrangement is lamentably not possible for most solitary Kemetics. I keep my Kemetic shrine in my bedroom on top of a wide dresser, due to spatial limitations, and to discourage others from tampering with it. My interactions with the Gods are a very private affair, thus I keep Their shrine in the most private of domestic spaces.

Outdoor shrines are certainly a possibility, but they run the risk of damage from the elements. If one decides to make a garden shrine, or build a small temple, the appropriate precautions must be taken, and careful consideration must go into choosing building materials that are able to withstand the worst weather of one’s particular climate.

4.) Does a shrine require special furniture?

The Kemetic Orthodox religion encourages its practitioners to keep the shrine within a cabinet, as per Ancient tradition. Many other Reconstructionist Kemetic religions also maintain this practice. However, this is not an inflexible requisite for the solitary Kemetic.

I personally prefer to keep my shrine open. The reason for this is that, while privacy and the protection of the icons are compromised, there is no barrier between the Gods and me. Openness encourages interaction. It also brings me a great deal of peace and happiness to have the images of the Gods be the last thing I see each night and the first thing I see each morning.

A simpler view of my shrine.

A simpler view of my Kemetic (Egyptian) shrine, before a few more Gods were accommodated for. A shrine does not have to be “much” in order to be a functional and beautiful center of worship within the home. Image © Sarduriur Freydis Sverresdatter.

To have or forgo a shrine cabinet is ultimately a personal decision. The important thing is that one tends to that space regularly, and cleans it at least once a week. Whether that space is on a (stable) bookshelf, atop a desk, or in a wall niche, it matters little. It only matters that it is there, and that it is well-kept.

5.) What basic items are needed in order to have a functional shrine? What objects should never be placed on a shrine?

If one chooses to have icons in/on the shrine, obviously, icons stay within the shrine space. When it comes time to clean the shrine, icons may be temporarily moved. During ritual processions on festival days, if one chooses to celebrate festivals this way, the icon or icons are ritually paraded out of the shrine.

If this shrine space is dedicated to deities of different traditions, it is preferred that Kemetic deities be kept separate from others, but that is an entirely personal choice/arrangement, especially if space is scarce.

Kemetic Orthodox standards require that a person have at least:

  • A white cloth made from natural fibers (but not wool) for the floor of the shrine.
  • A food-safe, waterproof, non-metal vessel for libations, and a food-safe, non-metal vessel for dry offerings.
  • A candle or several made from beeswax, palm wax, coconut wax, or another natural wax, not paraffin wax (white or red are traditional colors); an oil lamp; or a similar light source.
  • A heat-safe/fire-safe vessel for charcoal and granular incense — namely, for frankincense, myrrh, and/or kapet (kyphi).

Personally, I am loath to use altar cloths — they are a magnet for dust and stains, and slide every which way. I feel they are more hassle than they’re worth, but it’s entirely up to the individual whether or not to use one.

I prefer to use Japanese ceramics for offering bowls and plates. Japanese ceramic sets tend to be expensive, but they are very sturdy, beautifully minimalist, and above all, food-safe.

Pazuzu's corner of my humble Akkadian shrine. He doesn't have a permanent icon (yet), so I use my Pazuzu amulet instead.

Pazuzu‘s corner of my humble Akkadian shrine. He doesn’t have a permanent shrine icon (yet), so I place my Pazuzu amulet on the shrine whenever I pray/offer to Him. Image © Sarduriur Freydis Sverresdatter. 

As for candles, I use palm wax jar candles. Palm wax has a longer life than most waxes, and the brand I buy does not use lead-containing wicks as many other brands do.

I have a Himalayan salt rock lamp, too, which is powered by electricity. I use the salt rock lamp for my Akkadian shrine to Ištar of Kiš, Her husband Zababa of Kiš, and Pazuzu. As far as I know (damn it, Jim, I’m in the field of History, not Chemistry!), the salt rock lamp emits no unsafe gases. There’s absolutely no reason why salt rock lamps wouldn’t be equally suitable for a Kemetic shrine. Salt was/is considered a purifying substance among many cultures, including Ancient Egyptian culture. The presence of salt fixtures like a salt rock candle holder or lamp could therefore serve as a basic, permanent purifying element for one’s shrine.

LED candles are also a relatively eco-friendly, fire-safe light source option. They are an ideal choice for shrines established in bookcases or cabinets.

Both the use of oil diffusers and the burning of incense have their risks and disadvantages, specifically in regard to the way they spew toxic gases into the air (they won’t cause death in any immediate sense, but their fumes are not exactly healthy to breathe, either). They can easily become major fire hazards. This is particularly the case when the oils used are not pure essential oils. Alternatively, for those with respiratory sensitivities, a reed oil diffuser could be used, requiring no burning or heating while still filling the area with pleasant scents. Ultrasonic oil diffusers used by Aromatherapists are a safer option as well, but tend to be quite expensive. If that is still too irritating for one’s respiratory tissues and skin, oil and incense may be left out of the equation entirely. Historically, incense was a huge part of formal ritual in Ancient Egyptian religion, particularly when it came to “feeding” and “bathing” the cult icon. But if one cannot use oils and incense for health reasons, that’s perfectly understandable.

As for ritual items, I suggest that items such as bells and other noisemakers, writing materials, knives, amulets, and other tools not currently in-use be kept under or beside the shrine. If space and storage are scarce, it is entirely acceptable to keep them on/in the shrine.

Regardless of one’s denomination, unless one is purifying or “charging” objects for personal use, whatever one places on/in the shrine, stays on/in the shrine. These objects can serve no other purpose beyond ritual use. 

What doesn’t belong on/in the shrine includes but is not limited to:

  • Car keys
  • Junk mail
  • Waste material
  • Dust and grime

The shrine is the Gods’ home within one’s own home; it is not a place to dump anything and everything when convenient.

6.) How do I consecrate/dedicate a shrine?

Some time ago, I wrote a piece on purification. The techniques discussed there are relevant and adaptable to the initial consecration of a Kemetic shrine. I don’t want to clutter up this “how-to” guide further by inserting a “how-to” guide within a “how-to” guide. If this is not sufficient, I will happily write up a follow-up article on this topic in the immediate future for those interested.

There is an outline for the Kemetic Orthodox method of shrine dedication in Tamara L. Siuda’s The Ancient Egyptian Prayerbook. However, Egyptologist/Reverend Siuda does not wish to have any part of the book reproduced, so out of respect for her wishes I won’t take any block quotes out of it. Another Kemetic Reconstructionist organization, Per Djeba, very likely has some information available to give to those looking to consecrate a shrine in a more traditional fashion. It is piloted by some very knowledgeable people. Richard Reidy, author of Eternal Egypt, is another Kemetic figure of note who can give tips on how to perform a more historically-oriented rite of consecration/dedication.

7.) How might pets be kept off the shrine?

This is a question I have seen crop up quite often. I personally use this brand of natural orange oil-based furniture polish on the surface of my shrine. Vinegar-based cleaning products, if safe for the surface of one’s shrine, might also serve the same purpose. Cats are the biggest culprits, and tend to dislike the scent and taste of citrus and vinegar. If it is a tenable option for the individual, keeping one’s shrine in a bolted cabinet prevents such problems from arising.

8.) Should a shrine be simple or elaborate?

A shrine can be as simple or as elaborate as the caretaker desires, and as the Gods demand of the individual.

That said, I personally prefer simpler shrines. I am certainly no iconoclast, and I sometimes fall into moods where I just want to stare at Persian, Late Gothic, Baroque, and Victorian art and architecture for hours. However, at my core, I am against the idea of having material for the sake of having material. My Gods don’t require 10 different icons apiece, per shrine. One of each is all They want or need from me. Having more icons and spending more money on more objects does not equal greater religiosity and devotion. It just means one has a lot of religious art. One can, for instance, buy up all the resin statues of Ra in existence. But what meaning would possessing all those resin statues actually have? How does this serve Ra, and how does this serve the practitioner? Or the community? Consider this carefully.

Whatever one chooses to put on/in one’s shrine, whatever one’s personal aesthetic, it must have meaning to oneself and one’s practice. It must stir the soul.

If any of my readers are in need of a custom icon made by someone with skilled and reverent hands and quality materials, I know a guy. And I’ve heard a lot of happy testimonies, such as this one, from fellow Kemetics about this guy. The reader can peruse my Support the Pagan Community — Shop Pagan! page for more artisans and shops that sell religious icons and other shrine basics.

9.) How many Gods should be dedicated to a shrine: one, many, or none?

The subject of deities was dealt with in a previous round of KRT about deities, and whether all Kemetics have, or eventually find, “Patron” Gods. For the sake of ease, I suggest reading this first before any decisions are made.

My icons of Set and Heru-Wer.

My icons of Set and Heru-Wer. Image © Sarduriur Freydis Sverresdatter.

That having been said, there’s no established, required number of deities that a shrine needs to accommodate. One could have no Gods represented, and simply use the space to meditate on the abstractness of the NTR. Some find that easier and less spiritually distracting. One could build a shrine to only one deity, and have only one deity represented by a physical icon. Or three. Or fifteen.

My own shrine began as a shrine to Set alone, then expanded to Set and His son Sobek. The shrine then grew to accommodate Set, Sobek, Yinepu (Anubis), and Heru-Wer (“Horus the Elder,” brother of Set). Now Djehuty (Thoth), Khonsu as son of Sobek, Herishef, Montu, and a few others are also accommodated, because apparently Set is a “Gateway God” to other Gods and never bothered to shut the proverbial “God door” when He came waltzing into my life. In any event, my shrine is a Set-centric shrine, because Set I consider my chief deity. Set takes “center stage,” as it were.

10.) What options are available in the event that cohabitants do not approve of standing shrines?

I know that many who are reading this now are currently in less-than-hospitable living situations. Some cannot maintain standing shrines at all, and for a lot of Polytheists, particularly younger ones, this can be a very painful and difficult ordeal to suffer through.

But where there is a will, there is a way.

As my longtime readers know, my husband is a United States Marine. He cannot keep a standing shrine out in the open, and keeps his beliefs and practices mostly to himself due to the anti-”anything that isn’t Christian” attitude rife throughout all branches of the United States military. Some of his peers and superiors are understanding, but not all of them are. To help him with the separation from his usual religious practice he must endure, in October 2012 (before his second promotion, before we were married, and before he went on deployment), I pyrographed and stained a 3.5″ x 3.5″ wooden shrine box dedicated to one of the Gods we have in common, His chief God Freyr:

norse_travel_shrine___freyr___left_panel_i_by_warboar-d5hcy3m

A picture of the shrine before it was stained. For an explanation of the designs, please go here, here, and here.

In this travel shrine, my husband keeps a small antler faining hammer, a tiny bronze icon-pendant of Freyr, and other portable ritual items. In this way, he is able to carry out simple rituals in the middle of nowhere without attracting too much attention from his fellow Marines.

The sky is the limit with travel shrines. There are shrines made from matchboxes, as well as mint tins and tea tins. Some are a bit larger than the one I made for my husband, made out of anything from brass to wood inlaid with mother of pearl. They can be decorated as expressively or as discreetly as the devotee desires. Most importantly, they can go just about anywhere, and be kept hidden when the need arises. Deviant Art is always a good place to look for inspiration, as is Pinterest.

Don’t worry about level of artistic skill, or lack thereof. I’m certainly no John Singer Sargent, but I still make shrines and religious art. The important thing is that we use what talent we have; crafting something for the Gods is a devotional, sacred act. It doesn’t need to be perfect, or ostentatious. It only needs to be meaningful.

And if none of this speaks to the soul, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with simply going outside to greet the sun with hymns to Ra.

For more articles on this topic from other Kemetics, please click the image above.

For more articles on this topic from other Kemetics, please click the image above.


Shrine-Building in Four Easy Steps

0
0

Reblogged from Dice and Diamonds:

Click to visit the original post

Shrines are funny. Sometimes they are carefully engineered, with an esoteric architecture that speaks to the builder's private relationship with the divine-- and sometimes, they crop up out of nowhere, clusters of devotional objects gathering with a curious gravitational pull to any flat surface that has open space. Today's Roundtable post is about the former: the kinds of shrines we create with conscious effort, as a launching point for our conversations with the gods.

Read more… 1,137 more words

A wonderful, concise shrine guide by Sobeq.

It Certainly Can Be

Modern Myths Series

0
0

I’ve decided to take a brief respite from “super serious” academically-oriented writing. I’m going to use this opportunity to publish some long-overdue pieces that are far more literary (in a religious sense) than academic. My educational background colors everything I do, and I suppose that can’t be avoided. That said, the pieces I am currently working on and will publish to my blog over the summer season are holy stories of liturgical value (myths). They will not be exposés on the historical background and evolutions of the Polytheist religions I practice, nor will they be pieces of secular, cultural entertainment (fiction/folklore).

The “Pazuzu Cycle,” as things currently stand, will be divided into three digestible parts and published in succession. Recognizable elements present within the bilingual epic poem “Lugal-e ud me-lám-bi nir-ğál” (“Ninurta’s Exploits”) and Akkadian ritual texts will manifest themselves in different, more understandable forms within this cycle.

The names used throughout this cycle will be presented in Akkadian where and when known, since Pazuzu is an Akkadian, largely post-Bronze Age deity rather than a Sumerian, Bronze Age deity. While Sumerian language survived as a liturgical and classical language until about the First century CE, it stopped being spoken as a living vernacular language many centuries earlier . . . somewhere between 2000 BCE — 1700 BCE, if I am remotely correct in my recollection. And while many Akkadian myths and ritual texts are presented in bilingual format, using Sumerian names for Akkadian deities feels inappropriate to me, personally. There are points where and when I have no choice but to use Sumerian nomenclature, however: either because there is no Akkadian equivalent, or because I simply don’t know the Akkadian equivalent. Any inconsistencies in language present in my writing of these myths can be chalked up to this, and hopefully forgiven.

The “Pazuzu Cycle” will not be written with a strict mind for Ancient Mesopotamian poetic format. Sumerian and Akkadian lines are very repetitive, which is part of the reason why reconstructing surviving fragments wasn’t as hard as it would have otherwise been for the Historians, Archaeologists, and Linguists working in that area of study. The same lines occur over and over again throughout Ancient poetic texts to the point of boring most readers. There will be some repeated lines of text, but they will occur at reasonable intervals, so as to compromise neither continuity nor interest. The language of the myths will be presented in a semi-archaic literary tone and format. My aim is to structure the English more formally, but not so formally as to be inaccessible to the average Modern English-speaker or untranslatable to any of my non-English readers who are better with their own native tongues than with English.

Why and to what end am I doing this? Not as a work of “fan fiction,” nor because “Pazuzu told me to” in any explicit sense. I am doing this because Mesopotamian Gods are underrepresented (and I mean Mesopotamian, as in the Gods and religions of the Tigris-Euphrates river system, aka “the Fertile Crescent,” not the amorphous Modern map-blob of the ENTIRE “Middle East” that people tend to erroneously define Mesopotamia as these days). Their stories are overlooked by many, and dead to many more still. New life needs to be breathed into tales about these Gods if They are to survive beyond my generation, in an active religious sense. I don’t expect my little “Pazuzu Cycle” to be the best thing since John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” or anything like that, but hopefully it will in some way help the “new myths” trend gain some momentum among the wordsmiths of various Polytheist communities. A few of my fellow Kemetics are doing the same for Egyptian Gods, and a number of Hellenic acquaintances have done so for both Graeco-Egyptian and Greek Gods. They have inspired me to do the same for Mesopotamian Gods, to the best of my ability. The Gods need living, relevant words for our own time, not just the words of dead centuries. The Gods are alive and present, not dead and confined to the past.

Pazuzu is a major influence in my life whether and when He “speaks” to me or not, and I just plain love talking about how awesome He is. A lot of the motivation behind this mythic cycle is devotional in nature. Presenting Pazuzu through the medium of myth — updated myth — will allow Modern people to access Him in ways no academic work, much less a work of fiction, can ever allow. He deserves a few good myths, especially considering that His more recent appearances in Modern media had to do with that eye-gougingly awful The Exorcist film franchise and a smattering of Japanese cartoons and Science Fiction series — none of which were interested in Pazuzu as a legitimate God nor the culture and religion He comes from.


Philosocorns

0
0
Unicorn by Munguia

“Unicorn” by Munguia.

I’ve been seeing a spat of very poorly if not erroneously defined philosophical terms lately within Pagan and Polytheist communities, more so than usual. The “usual” was bad enough to begin with. Even self-evident concepts such as “Polytheism” (most dead of giveaways!), and common though marginally more elusive concepts such as “Dualism” and “Monism,” are being completely and painfully butchered.

In an attempt to help dispel some of the confusion surrounding these terms and encourage appropriate, informed usage, I direct your attention to Sofia Topia, a rather helpful and freely-accessible online resource — namely, this article on Henotheism. About a sixth of the way down a number of concise definitions are provided. Feel free to navigate around the site and enrich your minds. The nice thing about Sofia Topia is that, while the site design and layout is on the dreadful side, it doesn’t simply focus on Monotheist philosophies. There is a lot of breaking-down of Egyptian and Hellenic philosophies to be found there, too. Complete with footnotes and bibliographies.

A fair amount of the nomenclature is confusing and hard to break down in a number of areas, but it’s nothing a solid dictionary and a couple 100- and 200-level Philosophy texts can’t help you decipher (and for the love of all that is Holy, don’t rely on a casual Google search or Wikipedia or dictionary.com! We’ve been over this before).

I know it’s hard, at least at first. I know it bores most of you to tears. None of us will ever be perfect, no one was born knowing everything, no one knows everything, and we all make mistakes. I’ve been guilty of misuse of nomenclature a number of times in my life, and I’m not that much more immune to fuck-ups of thought now than I was a few years ago, given that with the more I learn, the more I understand how little I know. It’s okay. I survived. I learned and moved on with a fewer misconceptions in my head. I became a better, wiser, thicker-skinned person for it.

If we expect coherent dialogue to happen effectively within and between Pagan and Polytheist communities, we all need to take accountability for ourselves, learn the appropriate definitions, and use them within their appropriate contexts.

At some point in the not-so-distant future, I will compile a list of “Intro to Philosophy” texts that are both accessible to the layman and inexpensive. Philosophy was a minor of mine I did not stick with for longer than three or four semesters, since Philosophy provides zero job opportunities in the “real world,” despite its vital importance to Man and everything he knows. That said, please don’t expect phenomenal wonders out of me when it comes to rattling off Philosophy titles. It’ll at least be enough to set you on the path toward better texts and more competent authorities. I’m not nearly so proficient or helpful in the area of Philosophy as I am in Medieval Studies and Ancient Near Eastern History, though I will always make an earnest attempt to be as helpful as I can, utilizing what education I have.

For the time being, you shall either have to satisfy yourselves with Sofia Topia — which is worlds better than Wikipedia, dictionary.com, or whatever other stinking dead fish a casual Google search dredges up — or consult your nearest Philosophy major or professor. They’re rare as unicorns, but if you find one, you’ll be blessed with long life! Or long lectures that make each minute seem like its own eternity. Same difference.


The Ancient Egyptian Daybook Project — Updates

0
0

Tamara L. Siuda’s The Ancient Egyptian Daybook project now has its own website. Those of you who wanted to contribute to but missed the Kickstarter campaign have the renewed opportunity to pledge/reserve your copies of the text between now and December 2013. The chapter previews of the text will go live gradually over the summer season as work progresses.

Once the book is officially published, the website will be reformatted into a sales page from which the text may be ordered. So, if you miss out on being able to contribute to the project between now and December 2013, you will still be able to buy the book later.

And by all means, spread the word! Every little bit helps.

taedpromo1

 

 

 



An Allegory

On Sabbatical

0
0

Alternative title: Fruit is Murder, and It’s Murdering Me Right in the Face of my Gut

I prayed to Pazuzu last night, leaving Him rich offerings of delicious Franco-Spanish food, white wine, and gourmet toffees. In other words, all kinds of food I would like to eat but can’t, because I am incredibly physically ill to the point where ingesting anything causes me a great deal of bodily anguish.

This was all in anticipation of an appointment I had the following day — today — with a new doctor about my ongoing illnesses, which no doctor had since been able to resolve in any lasting way for me. I humbly asked (“begged” is probably a more fitting word for it) Pazuzu to help this new doctor see what was wrong with me and get me on the path toward a better quality of life and a functional body. I’ve felt myself dying slowly for a few years now, and I am admittedly afraid to die. Especially slowly, like this.

Either it was dumb luck (probably), or Pazuzu had a rare moment of indulgence or pity. (And to interject with something tenuously-related, I saw a very large female treefrog standing amid blooming water lilies and her newly-hatched tadpoles before I went to see my new doctor. Whether it was or not, I liberally interpreted that as a good omen from Heket.)

This new doctor was amazing. Is amazing. AMAZING. She has both extensive medical and psychiatric training — which among Western doctors is exceedingly rare, and more medical doctors should have that comprehensive training (not to mention, a soul). She actually treated me like a human being rather than a dollar sign. I ended up talking about a lot of traumas I’ve packed away for years and years, and there was a lot of crying and watery emotion pouring out like blood from a stuck pig that I never expected to happen, but that’s part of the healing process. A good thing, I suppose. She knew exactly what my physical illnesses are when no other “professional” within the last 7 or 8 years could figure it out. And she knew how we need to go about correcting them so I can have my body and my life back. I never expected to see so much done in one day. I was expecting further disappointment and hopelessness, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Although, not much of the news I received is good news.

It turns out that the endoscopy I had conducted about 4 years ago that was stamped “normal” by my former Gastroenterologists was not, in fact, “normal” at all. I am suffering from adema of the gastrointestinal tract, along with “leaky gut syndrome,” chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and a whole host of “evil tummy demons” too damaging and disgusting to describe here, resulting from 17 consecutive years of “hyper-adrenalization,” courtesy of unrelenting psycho-somatic trauma. In other words, I’ve been — for well over a decade — in a constant state of fight/flight, with no “rest and repair” mode saturated in dopamine to default to. Suffice it to say, I’m in a critical state of health. My adrenal glands are shot and my intestines are barely functional. I can’t digest properly, and can’t absorb nutrients properly. I’ve lost a lot of weight, particularly over the last 2 years, and my health has steeply declined over these last 7 or 8 years.

The first aspect of my treatment involves changing my diet gradually and completely. Fruit, fruit juices, and anything sugary are being factored out of my diet for the next several months to the next few years; I am facing a long convalescent period. My diet will consist of meat, green vegetables, and root vegetables. For the first phase, a lot of my intake will consist of meat/bone broths. From there, modest portions of solid greens and vegetables and meat will be gradually factored in. It’s going to hurt, and it’s going to be difficult, but it’s what I have to do if I expect to recover. My doctor told me, “when you actually manage to force something down, your current diet wouldn’t normally be bad for you. If you were healthy, that is. But you’re not healthy, and what you’re living with isn’t normal. Those fruits you’re eating, any sugars you consume, they’re feeding what’s killing you.

Outstanding.

The second and third aspects of my treatment/attainment of “cured!” status require consonant cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) sessions, and nixing all stressful stimuli, in order to cultivate a more wholesome environment for physical as well as psychological healing.

Which brings to me to my ultimate point: I will be on extended leave from all social networking activity for the bulk of the summer. I hope I have not disappointed anyone in not publishing the academic articles and pieces of non-academic literature I planned to publish by the end of this month and into next month. However, health must come first.

Depending upon the state of my health, I may be back in August. I may not be back until early 2014, since my husband will be returning from war this fall and undergoing surgery sometime shortly thereafter. I need to be well enough to take care of him as well as myself. I don’t know what the exact situation is yet. I do know that if and when I come back, I will come back with a decent fistful of academic articles to publish, after I publish the installments of “The Pazuzu Cycle.” If and when I have free time, I will be using that time to catch up on the reading/notation of sources I’ve recently acquired but have put on the proverbial back burner. I’ll also try to do some work in regard to myth-writing, but I won’t stress myself overmuch. Mostly, I will be sitting or doing yoga in front of my deity shrines when I have the energy, because that keeps the anxiety at bay.

Goodbye for now. I wish you all peace, fulfillment, and a sound mind in a healthy body.


Not Quite Back: A Few Updates to the Blog

0
0

Hello, dear readers!

I haven’t quite returned from sabbatical, but I have a few updates to discuss.

Firstly, I have updated the Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Terms and Concepts page. It’s nowhere near complete, but it’s in a far better state than it was before I went on sabbatical. Hopefully it will prove a handy reference for you all.

Secondly, I’ve added a reference site to the “Educational Resources” category in the sidebar. It is a project hosted by the University of Penn State, outlining the literary and religious heritage of Ancient Mesopotamia, and is perhaps the best reference website on that subject available. It not only gives basic descriptions of each deity, Their iconography, cult, and time periods attested; it also provides links to suggested reading, and to online corpa. It doesn’t list every Mesopotamian God in existence, but the website covers around fifty of the most important Gods of the Tigris and Euphrates river system.

Finally, I’m almost done compiling a list of suggested (accessible) readings in Philosophy, along with a consonant terms and concepts list for the layman. It should be completed within the next month or so, though I may wait until the fall to post it.

I have a couple academically-oriented articles I’m still in the process of completing — one addressing a Tiamat/Mesopotamian “Dragon Gods”-related question one reader asked me — and I have those slated for late September or October.

I’m not entirely sure when I’ll be back to writing in earnest, but know that neither I nor this blog is dead.

If you have any discussion topics you’d like me to tackle (though it may take me a while to get around to them, as matters currently stand), or need help with finding good sources on a subject, please feel free to email me your questions and suggestions. If you’re stumped on anything Egyptian or Ancient Near Eastern in particular, I am happy to lend a hand!


Using Budge = BAD IDEA!

0
0

Reblogged from Fanny Fae:

Click to visit the original post


"Who translated this? It’s completely wrong. They must have used Budge; I don’t know why they keep reprinting his books!" - Daniel Jackson, from the movie, "Stargate"

People: I am here to tell you once and for all, ditch the Budge translations that you have. Stop using them in your arguments and your writings. You are making your work and yourself into a laughing stock.

Read more… 846 more words

The same goes for using the works of Leonard William King (1869 - 1919) -- a colleague of Budge's, professor of Assyrian and Babylonian Archaeology at King's College, and eventual "Assistant to the Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities" at the British Museum -- who is still sometimes cited by those not-in-the-know for his work in the field of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, despite being outdated by roughly a century. Modern scholarship in these fields has well since progressed past that point. Additionally, Budge was considered even in his own time to be less than reliable, as Fanny Fae details below. Please, take Fanny Fae's advice: while (some of) their contributions may have been important during King's and Budge's own time, ditch the Late Victorian scholars and check the publishing information and copyright dates on your sources! Go for the works of scholars such as Jan Assmann, John Baines, Leonard Lesko, David Silverman, Geraldine Pinch, David Klotz, Dimitri Meeks, Jean Bottéro, Jeremy Black (d. 2004), Francesca Rochberg, Lise Manniche, James P. Allen, and Stephanie Dalley instead.

What it Means to be Jewish and a Polytheist

0
0

Reblogged from Making Bright:

L'shanah Tova! Happy Jewish new year! Happy Canaanite new year!

The title of this blog post might seem strange, or controversial, or not possible to some people - but I find that, as the high holidays of Judaism roll around, and with my recent interest in connecting with the Gods of Canaan as per the urging of my ancestors, and my own heart, this is a topic I would like to discuss, and maybe make clearer for any and all interested in how one might be able to call themselves both Jewish AND a polytheist.

Read more… 3,223 more words

Viewing all 137 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images