Page 1 of 25
This is an essay for all those who are interested in Egyptian
Monotheism before AkhenAten.
http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2008/11/monotheism-before-akhenaten.html
Africa: Timeline Index & Other Issuesincluding topics around
Mitochondrial DNA [e.g. M1, U6, U5...], Y haplogroup [e.g. E3b,
E3a, R1a, R1b, J1, J2...], microsatellite sequences, and other DNA
loci . Home Placing Africa In Its Proper Context Developments Terms
& Conditions: Comments/DisclaimerFRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21,
2008Monotheism before Akhenaten?This is essentially a revival of an
interesting discussion-board topic several years back, that proved
to be instructive in highlighting the complexity of ancient
Egyptian religious and spiritual thought. Some tend to have a
rather monotypic sense of what constitutes ancient Egyptian
religious concepts, usually dismissing it as merely "polytheistic",
and by extension, one which remained unchanged in character over
time, without actually examining in detail, the features of the
concepts, their possible origins and how that changed over time. On
the contrary, ancient Egyptian religious and spiritual thought was
anything but static and/or simplistic in character. To recapitulate
from that discussion, here is an excerpt from E. A. Wallis Budge's
"Egyptian Religion", making note of common misunderstandings of
ancient Egyptian belief...
...neteru, i.e., the beings or existences which in some way
partake of the nature or character ofGod, and are usually called
"gods". [notice the emphasis on capital letter used for the one
being, and that the lower case letter for incarnations]
The early nations that came in contact with the Egyptians
usually misundertood the nature of these beings, and several modern
Western writers have done the same.
When we examine these "gods" closely, they are found to be
nothing more nor less than forms, or manifestations, or phases, or
attributes, ofone god, the god beingRa the Sun-god, who, it must be
remembered,was the type and *symbol* of *God*.Nevertheless, the
worship of theneteruby Egyptians has been made thebase of the
charge of "gross idolatry"which has been brought against them, and
have been represented by some as being on the low intellectual
level of savage tribes.
It is certain that from the earliest time one of the greatest
tendencies of the Egyptian religion was towardsmonotheism, and this
tendency may be observed in all important texts down to the last
period;it is also certain that a kind of polytheism existed in
Egypt side by side with monotheism from very early times.
Whether monotheism or polytheism be the older, it is useless in
our present state of knowledge to attempt to enquire.According to
Tiele, the religion of Egypt was at the beginning polytheistic, but
developed in two opposite directions: in the one direction gods
were multiplied by the addition of local gods, and... in the other
the Egyptians drew nearer and nearer to monotheism.Dr. Wiedemann
takes the view that three main elements may be recognized in the
Egyptian religion:1. A solar monotheism, that is to say one god,
the creator of the universe, who manifests his power especially in
the sun and its operations;2. A cult of the regenerating power of
nature, which expresses itself in the adoration of ithyphallic
gods, of fertile goddesses, and of a series of animals and of
various deities of vegetation;3. A perception of an anthropomorphic
divinity, the life of whom in this world and in the world beyond
this was typical of the ideal life of man -this last divinity
being, of course, Osiris.But here again, as Dr. Wiedemann says, it
is an unfortunate fact that all the texts which we possess are, in
respect of the period of the origin of the Egyptian religion,
comparatively late, and therefore in them we find these three
elements mixed together, along with a number of foreign matters, in
such a way as to make it impossible to discover which of them is
the oldest....
...The epithets which the Egyptians applied to their gods also
bear valuable testimony concerning the ideas which they held about
God.
*We have already said that the "gods" are only forms,
manifestations, and phases of Ra, the Sun-god,who was himself the
type and symbol of God, and it is evident from the nature of these
epithets that they were only applied to the "gods" because they
represented some quality or attribute which they would have applied
to God had it been their custom to address Him.
Source:Title: Egyptian Religion; chapter 1>The Belief in God
Almighty; E.A Wallis Budge.
In reference to the above text, as an example amongst many, it
should be noted that Ra, the Sun-god, is actuallyasymbol
ofinvisible one Almighty God.Theneteruare just manifestations of
the various innate powers of the one invisible Almighty God. Ra
though, in many cases being the main "type and symbol" of the
supreme being, was apparently at the top of the divine hierarchy,
in terms of visible characterizations of the supreme being's
attributes, while the rest of theneteru generallypersonifiedby both
mythic and deceased [royalty] anthropomorphic figures
werelessermanifestations of the different attributes of the
[invisible] supreme being's power.
If one re-exams the Budge text, he states that from the various
Egyptian texts, it appeared that both monotheist and polytheist
*tendencies* existed.
Most of the gods like Osiris, including Ra himself, are
"manifestations, or phases, or attributes of one god", the
invisible God. In other words, these aren't really separate and
distinct gods, but incarnations or manifestations or forms or
culminations of the One God. This in itself would be aligned to the
"monotheistic" approach, however outwardly it might appear to a
layperson, not familiar with the concept. In strict sense it is not
Pure Monotheism but as a lose term it is a type of Monotheism. From
the perspective of strict sense any thing less than is is
Polytheism but in the lose sense it is a type of Monotheism, less
strict and broad.Thus Not only Personified Menifestations and
Incarnations of The God [NETERUS]are gods but the very God is also
a god. This type of Monotheism is some what different from
Henotheism sinseIt is a belief of One Supreme or Prime god [say
God] and a number of lesser gods [whether Subordinate to God or
weak independent gods].Since in this case lower gods are distinct
from the God , and not His Manifestations or Incarnations or
both.
Texts that suggest that at one point a "polytheistic" approach
was taken, in the very early social development stage of the Nile
Valley communities, are exemplified by the following:
"Negative Confession" in the 125th chapter of the Book of the
Dead. Here, in the oldest copies of the passages known, the
deceased says "I have not cursed God" (1.38), and a few lines after
(1.42) he adds, "I have not thought scorn of the god living in my
city."
It seems that here we have indicated two different layers of
belief, and thatthe older is represented by the allusion to the
"god of the city," in which case it would go back to the time when
the Egyptian lived in a primitive fashion.
If we assume that God (who is mention in line 38) is Osiris, it
doesn't do away with the fact that he was regarded as a
beingentirely differentfrom the "god of the city" and that he was
of sufficient importance to have one line of the "Confession"
devoted to him.- Budge
While it is hard to determine when the Egyptians started
adopting the "monotheistic" approach, since "it existed there at a
period so remote that it is useless to attempt to measure years the
interval of time" (according to Budge), it appears that the
'monotheistic' approach took steam throughout dynastic time.
Nevertheless the periodic references like the example above,
provide some indicators that at one point, at an earlier time
frame, a polytheistic approach was also in place.
By the way, the "god of the city", is described by Budge as the
following:
god of the city in which a man lived was regarded as the *ruler
of the city*, and the people of that city no more thought of
neglecting to provide him with what they considered to be due to
his rank and position than they thought of neglecting to supply
their own wants.
...this would be a living person, as indicated bylower
cases.
Sources of various Egyptian cosmology were found virtually
everywhere from inscriptions on monuments to Papyri, some of which
were rewritten by scribes or Priests from very early periods to the
later ones. So we have religious texts dating to various periods ,
works of early sages of Egypt like Precepts of Kaqemna and Precepts
of Ptah-hetep or "Maxims of Khensu-hetep" , Papyrus of Ani ,
Papyrus of Nekht, Papyrus of Hunefer, Text of Unas , Text of Teta,
and the hymns found in places likes of the Book of the Dead, and
more.
In many cases, the particular incarnation or being with god-like
qualities to which a hymn is dedicated, is identified with Ra. As
Budge put it, an example of this can be seen in a hymn to Hapi in
which, he is called One, and is said to have created himself. Later
on in the text, in order to identify him with Ra, the epithets
which belong to the Sun-god are applied to him. The hymn in
question was popular in the 18th & 19th dynasties.
According to Budge:
The late Dr. H. Brugsch collected a number of the epithets
[published in Religion pages 99-101] which are applied to the gods,
from texts of all periods; and from these we may see that the ideas
and beliefs of the Egyptians concerning God were almost identical
with those of the Hebrew and Muhammadans at later periods. When
classified these epithets read thus [Budge provides more examples,
well just stick to a few] :-
God is One and alone, and none other existeth with Him; God is
the One, the One Who hath made all things.
God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the
great spirit of the Egyptians, the divine spirit.
God is from the beginning, and He hath been from the beginning;
He hath existed from of old and was when nothing else had being. He
existed when nothing else existed, and what existeth He created
after He hand come into being. He is the father of beginnings.
God is the eternal One, He is eternal and infinite; and endureth
for ever and aye; He hath endured for countless ages, and He shall
endure to all eternity.
God is the hidden Being, and no man hath known His form. No man
hath been able to see out His likeness; He is hidden from gods and
men, and He is a mystery unto His creatures
God is merciful unto those who reverence Him, and He heareth him
that calleth upon Him. He protected the weak against the strong,
and He heareth the cry of him that is bound in fetters; He judgeth
between the mighty and the weak. God knoweth him that knoweth Him,
and He protected him that followed Him.
We have now to consider the visible emblem, and the type and
symbol of God, namely the Sun-god Ra, who was worshiped in Egypt in
prehistoric times. According to the writings of the Egyptians,
there was a time when neither heaven nor earth existed, and when
nothing had being except the boundless primeval water, which was,
however, shrouded with thick darkness. In this condition the
primeval water remained for a considerable time, notwithstanding
that it contained within it the germs of the things which
afterwards came into existence in this world itself.
At length the spirit of the primeval water felt the desire for
creative activity, and having uttered the word, the world sprang
straightway into being in the form which had already been depicted
in the mind of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted
in its creation. The next act of creation was the form of a germ,
or egg, from which sprang Ra, the Sun-god, within whose shining
form was embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit.
Such was the outline of creation as described by the late Dr. H.
Brugsch, and it is curious to see how closely his views coincide
with a chapter in thePapyrus of Nesi Amsupreserved in the British
Museum. In the third section of this papyrus we find a work which
was written with the sole object of overthrowing Apep, the great
enemy of Ra, and in the composition itself we find two versions of
the chapter which describes the creation of the earth and all
things therein.
It must be noted that despite the monotheistic base of Egyptian
belief, theneteruappeared to have added to the confusion felt by
outsiders or foreigners in Egypt.Akhenaten's rejection of
theneteruis what made him stand out, because it revealed the true
monotheistic base of Egyptian belief.
Akhenaten simply just stuck to Ra, the Sun-god, whom as Budge
and many sources have made clear time and again, was the type and
symbol of Almighty God, but without theanthropomorphic
personification in other words, just the "disc" itself becoming
theonly"type and symbol" of the supreme being. The Almighty God
here, is the one and eternal spirit.
Egyptians never left the "monotheistic" base, in so far as
theneteruwere treated as manifestations of Ra, who in turn is the
visible symbol of the invisible God Almighty. This is what needs to
be understood. The 'gods' who were manifestations of the one God,
convey a "polythiestic" outlook to a concept with an otherwise
monotheistic inclination.
Take note of the three elements recognized in ancient Egyptian
belief (identified by Dr. Wiedemann), that was mentioned in the
first Budge text quoted.
Some scholars are of the opinion that Egyptian belief, in their
lesser social development state in Pre-historic times, may have
started out being polytheistic, before the adoption of the approach
with a monotheistic inclination. Of course, there is no evidence
that determines when the Egyptians first started adopting the
monotheistic concept, since it goes back to a remote period.
Akhenaten did away with these manifestations!
Pre-dynastic Egypt was made up of Lower and Upper Egyptian
kingdoms, which means each had their own local gods and beliefs.
This is consistent with what Budges says about the"god in the
city":
In prehistoric times every little village or town, every
district and province, and every great city, hadits own particular
god...The god of the village, although he was a more important
being, might be led into captivity along with people of the
village, but the victory of his followers in a raid or fight caused
the honours paid to him be magnified and enhanced his renown. [kind
of like what we see in the Rainmaker King concept]
The gods of provinces or of great cities were, of course,
greater than those of villages and private farmilies, and in the
large houses dedicated to them, i.e., temples, a considerable
number of them, represented by statues, would be found...whenever
and wherever the Egyptian attempted to set up a system of gods they
always found that the old local gods had to be taken into
consideration, and a place had to be found fo them in the system.
This might be done by making them members of triads, or of groups
of nine gods, now commonly called "enneads"; but in one form or
other they had to appear.
The researches made during the last few years have shown that
there must have been several large schools of theological though in
Egypt, and each of these the priests did their utmost to proclaim
the superiority of their gods...we see that the great god of
Heliopolis was Temu or Atmu, the setting sun, and to him the
priests of that place ascribed the attributes which rightly belong
to Ra, the Sun-god of the day-time. For some reason or other, they
formulated the idea of a company of gods, nine in number, which was
called the "great company (paut) of gods", and at the head of this
company they placed the god Temu...The priests of Heliopolis in
setting Temu at the head of their company of the gods thus gave Ra,
and Nu also, a place of high honour; they cleverly succeeded in
making their own local god chief of the company, but at the same
time they provided the older gods with positions of importance. In
this way worshippers of Ra, who had regarded their god as the
oldest of the gods, would have little cause to complain of the
introduction of Temu into the company of the gods, and the local
vanity of Heliopolis would be gratified.
Despite the above, it is restated, from the same source:
It is quite true that the Egyptians paid honour to a number of
gods, a number so large that the list of their mere names would
fill a volume, but it is equally true that the educated classes in
Egypt at all times never placed the "gods" on the same high level
as God, and they never imagined that their views on this point
could be mistaken.
Upon unification of Lower and Upper Egypt, apparently all the
local gods had to be brought under a system, with the important and
surviving ones included. Despite the numerous local gods before
unification, it appears that there were some common elements found
in the beliefs of different kingdoms, cities, or villages. This
would have made it easier to bring them together under one system,
for lack of a better word. Given that some of these shared
attributes to begin with, they were synchronized and made into a
composite deity, rather than eliminating one or the other of the
contributing deity elements altogether. The belief in one Supreme
being and a creation story is an example of this.
Earlier reference to"enneads"was made in the Budge text, appears
to have been a Greek reference to nine gods of Heliopolis, and the
Egyptians used the term "pesdjet" to denote a collection of deities
in any temple. Examples of this can be the aforementioned 9 deities
of Heliopolis, the 7 deities of the Abydos temple, or the 15
deities of the Karnak temple complex (see@ site: philae.nu).
As an example, consider the above mentioned Budge piece, with
emphasis to the case involving Atum or Temu...whenever and wherever
the Egyptian attempted to set up a system of godsthey always found
that the old local gods had to be taken into consideration, and a
place had to be found fo them in the system. This might be done by
making them members of triads, or of groups of nine gods, now
commonly called "enneads";but in one form or other they had to
appear.
The researches made during the last few years have shown that
there must have been several large schools of theological though in
Egypt, and each of these the priests did their utmost to proclaim
the superiority of their gods...
we see that the great god of Heliopolis was Temu or Atmu, the
setting sun, and to him the priests of that place ascribed the
attributes which rightly belong to Ra, the Sun-god of the day-time.
For some reason or other, they formulated the idea of a company of
gods, nine in number, which was called the "great company (paut) of
gods", and at the head of this company they placed the god
Temu...The priests of Heliopolis in setting Temu at the head of
their company of the gods thus gave Ra, and Nu also, a place of
high honour; they cleverly succeeded in making their own local god
chief of the company, but at the same time they provided the older
gods with positions of importance. In this way worshippers of Ra,
who had regarded their god as the oldest of the gods, would have
little cause to complain of the introduction of Temu into the
company of the gods, and the local vanity of Heliopolis would be
gratified.Here, we see that Atum was also identified with
thesettingSun.
Keeping in mind that Atum is supposed to be the creative force
of Nun, which is the primeval waters, the state of nothingness,
which apparently was devoid of light. Atum thus personified this
creative force.
Ra, as the present author has noted elsewhere in the past:
Re or Ra, originally meant theheavenly body, joined Herakhty (a
recognized sun god) to represent themorning[and/or daytime] sun,
and adopted the falcon head. Later he joined Atum, to become
Re-Atum, manifestation of the setting sun and the daytime sun.
Couple the "creative force" of Atum, which the following
intuitively puts...
Courtesy ofphilae.nu:O Atum! When you came into being you rose
up as a High Hill, You shone as the Benben Stone in the Temple of
the Benu in Heliopolis....Here Atum is the Primeval Mound itself.
This is understable when we think of how the ground and banks along
the Nile rose from the receding waters each year, soon sprouting
new weeds and greenery, and animals and insects would inhabit them
again. Life seemed to come out of the ground itself. This is the
idea behind Atum, the Primeval Mound, the Creator, god who within
him contains the possibilities of every life form....with the
"regenerative" and "life-supporting" role of the Sun's light and
radiation in the above mentioned "creative force":
"symbolic of life, warmth, light and day. It dispels the
darkness and cold. It calls the unseen seed-life from out of the
dark soil. It brings forth the light from the darkness of the
night, as well as life from out of the underworld. It symbolizes
the Creator's power to enliven, nourish and enlighten."- courtesy
of John Van Auken
And out of that, it makes sense to synchronize Atum with Ra,
originally the morning or daytime Sun-god, so that we get Atum-Ra
the composite deity representing the sun's cycles from sun rise to
sun set.
While Shu was perceived to be the patron of Gases (atmosphere;
generally associated with daylight sky), which begot Geb, with
Tefnut the matron of moisture and liquid, Geb would become the
patron of solid state. Geb in turn would unite with the matron of
Gases [also atmosphere; generally associated with the night sky],
"Nut", to give rise to Ausar, after all the human body for example,
is a product of all state of matter.
Courtesy ofwww.philae.nu, we have:
HeliopolisThe ruins of Lunu lies under the suburbs of north-east
Cairo. It was known to Herodotus ca 450 B.C. as Heliopolis. But
already about 3000 B.C. this was where one of the most important
and influential myths of creation was formulated. The earliest
written source of this are the Pyramid Texts of 5th and 6th
dynasties, the largest single collection of religious writings.
They were probably composed mostly by priesthood. They held their
position and developed through time, until Amun became the state
god at Thebes.
NunorThe Primeval WatersBefore the structured cosmos was created
there was only darkness which held a limitless water, the primeval
Nun, also calledthe Father of Gods. There were no temples built to
Nun, but this deity is made present in many shrines as the sacred
lake which *symbolizes* the non-existence before creation.The
concept of the Primeval waters are common to all Egyptian creation
myths. Even if their details differ, they are all explanations of
how light and order was formed in the unordered, unstructured chaos
of darkness and timelessness.
Also relevant to the point just made, courtesy ofTouregypt.net,
we have:
"The growth of the Egyptian religion is one of the reasons why
Egypt ended up with such a complex and polytheistic religious
system. When a town grew in prominence, so did the god. When the
town was deserted, the god disappeared. Only a few of the many
deities ended up in the Egyptian pantheon, and even then their
popularity waxed and waned through the thousands of years of
Egyptian history. Another reason for complexity was when people
moved, their god did, too. This meant that at the new town, there
was sometimes a battle between the old and new gods - but the
Egyptian gods were easily merged, with other gods taking over that
god's attributes and abilities! So it is that some of the ancient
gods of Neolithic and Predynastic Egypt came to national prominence
are considered to be some of the main gods in the Egyptian pantheon
today: Amun of Thebes, Ptah of Hikuptah (Memphis), Horus (the
Elder) of Nekhem, Set of Tukh (Ombos), Ra of Iunu (Heliopolis), Min
of Gebtu (Koptos), Hathor of Dendra and Osiris of Abydos."
This is perhaps a gist of the reasons behind the complexity of
Egyptian cosmology, but it appears that idea of the invisible God
is a very old one, for which the present author doubts any evidence
has been uncovered indicating when the idea came about in the Nile
Valley.
It should be noted, that Akhenaten's Aten itself was the
representation of Re or Ra, the Sun-God, although the Aten's
association with an anthropomorphic form was done away with in this
case. Of course there are some who question the "monotheistic"
inclination of Akhenaten's religious philosophy, but the commentary
onTouregypt.netmay well have summed that philosophy in a way that
many can understand: "there is no god but Aten, and Akhenaten is
his prophet" -touregypt.net
An example of the aforementioned viewpoint came along the
following lines, in a discussion, supposedly to refute something
that the present author had said at the time, when in fact, in
certain instances, it even goes onto to reiterate and vindicate
some of the very points that the present author had already shed
light on:
I can only reply that the Atenists were no more worshipping the
sun than the Christians worship a piece of wood called a
crucifix.Even if I were to go along with your suggestion here, Ra
or Re is only "representative" of the risen sun. He originally
manifested himself at Heliopolis in the form of the ben ben stone
nurtured in the bosom of Nun from which by an effort of self will
he arose from the Abyss as Atum, and appeared in the sun as
resplendent light. He then gave birth to Shu (the holy breath) seen
in the rays from the Aten disc, and Tefnut, who without the
assistance of a mate in turn gave birth to Geb and Nut who then
produced Isis, Osiris, Set and Nephthys. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely that Akhenaton worshipped just the symbol of Aten and Re
without the theology. For example why would the Anke appear at the
end of the suns rays unless there were a whole theology and
doctrines involving all the natures of Ra. The Book of the Dead
actually refers to Ra and Osiris as the same being!Theres only one
God in the Bible represented by a Cross on the binding cover, but
God has many characters. With Akhenaton it was decided not to
physically represent those facets literally as idols.They were
there nevertheless, and your point of view is over simplified and
unrealistic for intelligent people of the Egyptian l8th dynasty.The
present author's response to this was put this way [might seem
repetitive, because this happens to be the original source of where
some of the earlier mentioned postings came from]:
The act of making suggestions and over-simplifications comes
from your end; I gather available information known from the work
of various Egyptologists.In your theory, you fail to comprehend
that Atum came fromPrimeval Waters, which actually if one fully
grasps it, has no form. So Atum was created from himself, and then
rose out of thePrimeval darknessorwaterto form thePrimeval Mound.
ThisPrimeval Moundbecame the dwelling place for the sun-god. The
Sun-god, is the manifestation of God's power through the sun. The
power can perhaps be expressed as:" symbolic of life, warmth, light
and day. It dispels the darkness and cold. It calls the unseen
seed-life from out of the dark soil. It brings forth the light from
the darkness of the night, as well as life from out of the
underworld. It symbolizes the Creator's power to enliven, nourish
and enlighten. "-courtesy of John Van AukenSo [to reiterate], Ra
himself came to represent the sun. Re or Ra, originally meant
theheavenly body, joined Herakhty (a recognized sun god) to
represent the morning sun, and adopted the falcon head. Later he
joined Atum, to become Re-Atum, manifestation of the setting sun
and the daytime sun.Now the Aten was the sun disc itself, again a
heavenly body, that became personified as Re or Ra. "aten" in
itself is simply meant a disc, and could represent any round body.
Its association with divinity first appears in theTale of Sinhueat
about 2000 B.C., which claims that Amenemhat I rose into the sky in
unification with Aten, his creator. It was just a matter of time,
for the 'aten' to be elevated into a deity in its own right from
being a mere symbol.Akhenaten accepted Aten as the only
representation of the formless God. Just to take an external source
as an example, perhapsTouregypt.netwebsite relayed this basic them
in a way that is intellectually-digestive to almost anyone...Before
Akhenaten, the placing of one god in a privileged position never
threatened the existence of the remaining gods. The one and the
many had been treated as complementary throughout Egyptian history
and gods were not mutually exclusive. Now they were and we witness
the formulation of a new logic.Although his qualities are not
absolute, the Aten becomes a monotheistic God by virtue of this. He
becomes a jealous god, who will tolerate no other gods before
him.Essentially, anything that does not fit into the nature of the
Aten was no longer divine. The main difference between the hymns of
Akhenaten, though using similar working to earlier works, is what
they omit. For example, now, the difference between night and day
is simply that during the night, the Aten is not present. No longer
do other gods rule the dark. Furthermore, several thousand years of
myths can no longer exist.The Aten's nature is not revealed but is
only accessible through intellectual effort and insight only to
Akenaten and those whom he teaches.Akenaten tells us that "there is
no one else who knows you (the Aten)", and he is constantly given
the epithet Waenre "the unique one of Re".
Hence, the Aten is so far removed that an intermediary is
required in order to be accessible to mankind, and that
intermediary is the king. During the New Kingdom, the use of
intermediaries had been increasingly important to access the gods.
However, worshipers had been able to turn to a variety of these,
including sacred animals, statues, dead men who had been deified
who functioned in this capacity. Now, there only recourse was the
king, who becomes the sole prophet of their god. Hence, the
faithful of the Amarna period pray at home in front of an altar
that contains a picture of the king and his family.The new religion
could be summed up as "there is no god but Aten, and Akhenaten is
his prophet".Hence, the transformation becomes visibly apparent
because of the unparalleled persecution of traditional gods, above
all, Amun. Akhenaten's stonemasons swarm the country and even
abroad to remove the name of Amun from all accessible monuments,
including even the tips of obelisks, under the gilding on columns
and in the letters of the achieves. In fact, Egyptologists use
these erasures and later restorations of the name of Amun in order
to date monuments to the period before Amarna. Though Amun felt the
worst of Akhenaten's revolution, other gods were also eliminatedHe
may have eradicated the names of other gods, but he could not
extinguish several thousand years of mythological traditions,
particularly at a time when Egyptian religion was increasingly
democratized.
Earlier I posted:
"HeliopolisThe ruins of Lunu lies under the suburbs of
north-east Cairo. It was known to Herodotus ca 450 B.C. as
Heliopolis. But already about 3000 B.C. this was where one of the
most important and influential myths of creation was formulated.
The earliest written source of this are the Pyramid Texts of 5th
and 6th dynasties, the largest single collection of religious
writings. They were probably composed mostly by priesthood. They
held their position and developed through time, until Amun became
the state god at Thebes.""NunorThe Primeval WatersBefore the
structured cosmos was created there was only darkness which held a
limitless water, the primeval Nun, also called the Father of Gods.
There were no temples built to Nun, but this deity is made present
in many shrines as the sacred lake which *symbolizes* the
non-existence before creation. The concept of the Primeval waters
are common to all Egyptian creation myths. Even if their details
differ, they are all explanations of how light and order was formed
in the unordered, unstructured chaos of darkness and
timelessness."
Now add this, a part of which was also cited earlier...
"AtumOut of Nun rose the creator of the world Atum or the
Primeval Mound, "lord to the limit of the sky" and "lord of
Heliopolis", who self-developed into a being, standing on a raised
mound, i.e., which became theBenben, a pyramid shaped stonde,
regarded as the dwelling place of the sun god.
Atum is therefore the creator god who created the universe, he
is the supreme being and master of the forces and elements of the
universe. Utterance 600 in the Pyramid Texts:
O Atum! When you came into being you rose up as a High Hill, You
shone as the Benben Stone in the Temple of the Benu in
Heliopolis.
...Here Atum is the Primeval Mound itself. This is understable
when we think of how the ground and banks along the Nile rose from
the receding waters each year, soon sprouting new weeds and
greenery, and animals and insects would inhabit them again. Life
seemed to come out of the ground itself. This is the idea behind
Atum, the Primeval Mound, the Creator, god who within him contains
the possibilities of every life form.
Then Atum created Shu and Tefnut, an extract from Papyrus
Brehmer-Rhind states:All manifestations came into being after I
developed...no sky existed no earth existed...I created on my own
every being...my fist became my spouse....I copulated with my
hand...I sneezed out Shu...I spat out Tefnut...Next Shu and Tefnut
produced Geb and Nut...Geb and Nut gave birth to Osiris...Seth,
Isis and Nephtys...ultimately they produced the population of this
land." -courtesy ofphilae.nu
Next we have:"Prior to Akhenaten, the sun disk could be a symbol
in which major gods appear and so we find such phrases as "Atum who
is in his disk ('aten'). However, from there it is only a small
leap for the disk itself to become a god.It was Akhenaten
(Amenhotep IV) who first initiated the appearance of the true god,
Aten, by formulating a didactic name for him. Hence, in the early
years of Amenhotep IV's reign, the sun god Re-Horakhty,
traditionally depicted with a hawk's head, became identical to
Aten, who was now worshipped as a god, rather than as an object
associated with the sun god. Hence, prior to Akhenaten, we speak of
The Aten, while afterwards it is the god Aten. Initially, Aten's
relationship with other gods was very complex and it should even be
mentioned that some Egyptologists have suggested that Amenhotep IV
may have equated Aten to his own father, Amenhotep III. Others have
suggested that, rather than true monotheism, the cult of Aten was a
form of henotheism, in which one god was effectively elevated above
many others, though this certainly does not seem to be the case
later during the Amarna period...Amenhotep IV, who would change his
name to Akhenaten to reflect Aten's importance, first replaced the
state god Amun with his newly interpreted god. The hawk-headed
figure of Re-Horakhty-Aten was then abandoned in favor of the
iconography of the solar disk, which was now depicted as an orb
with a uraeus at its base emitting rays that ended in human hands
either left open or holding ankh signs that gave "life" to the nose
of both the king and the Great Royal Wife, Nefertiti. It should
however be noted that this iconography actually predates Amenhotep
IV with some examples from the reign of Amenhotep II, though now it
became the sole manner in which Aten was depicted.Aten was now
considered the sole, ruling deity and thus received a royal
titulary, inscribed like royal names in two oval cartouches. As
such, Aten now celebrated its own royal jubilees (Sed-festivals).
Thus, the ideology of kingship and the realm of religious cult were
blurred.The Aten's didactic name became "the living One,
Re-Harakhty who rejoices on the horizon, in his name (identity)
which is Illumination ('Shu, god of the space between earth and sky
and of the light that fills that space') which is from the solar
orb."This designation changes everything theologically in Egypt.
The traditions Egyptians had adopted since the earliest times no
longer applied. According to Akhenaten, Re and the sun gods Khepri,
Horakhty and Atum could no longer be accepted as manifestations of
the sun. The concept of the new god was not so much the sun disk,
but rather the life giving illumination of the sun. To make this
distinction, his name would be more correctly pronounced,
"Yati(n)".Aten was now the king of kings, needing no goddess as a
companion and having no enemies who could threaten him. In effect,
this worship of Aten was not a sudden innovation on the part of one
king, but the climax of a religious quest among Egyptians for a
benign god limitless in power and manifest in all countries and
natural phenomena.After Aten ascended to the top of the pantheon,
most of the old gods retained their positions at first, though that
would soon change as well. Gods of the dead such as Osiris and
Soker were several of the first to vanish from the Egyptian
religious front...Aten took on many characteristics alien to Re. Re
did not function in a vacuum of gods and goddesses. Yet there
remained cloudy associations with Re even as Akhenaten moved into
his new capital."-touregypt.net
The above are extracts from a discussion-board archives dating
to February through to March 2005.
Having said all this, perhaps in the midst of debates stemming
from people's subjective opinions about what constitutes
'monotheism' or 'polytheism', one might want to examine standard
definitions of the terms, and related terms. For example, if one
were to go by an online "encyclopedic" tool like Wikipedia, the
standard definitions given are...
Henotheism: Most monotheists would say that, by definition,
monotheism is incompatible with polytheism. However, devotees
within polytheistic religious traditions often behave like
monotheists. This is because a belief in multiple gods does not
imply the worship of multiple gods. Historically, many polytheists
believe in the existence of many gods, but worship only one,
considered by the devotee to be the supreme being.
In religion and philosophy,henotheismis a term coined by Max
Mller, meaning belief in, and possible worship of, multiple gods,
one of which is supreme. It is also called inclusive monotheism or
monarchial polytheism. According to Mller, it is "monotheism in
principle and a polytheism in fact".
Communities which have an exclusive relationship with one deity
whilst not denying the existence of other deities are
calledmonolatrous.
There are also monotheistic theologies in Hinduism which teach
that the many forms of God, i.e., Vishnu, Shiva, or Devi merely
represent aspects of a single or underlying divine power or Brahman
(see articles on Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman). Some claim
that Hinduism never taught polytheism.
Monolatrismforms a type of henotheism. Its adherents believe
that many gods do exist, but these gods can exert their power only
on those who worship them. Thus, a monolatrist may believe in the
reality of both the Egyptian gods and the God described in the
Bible, but sees him or herself as a member of only one of these
religions. The gods that he/she worships affects their life; the
other gods do not.
Monistic Theismis the type of monotheism found in Hindu culture.
Such type of theism is different from the Semitic religions as it
encompasses panentheism, monism, and at the same time includes the
concept of a personal God as an universal, omnipotent Supreme
BeingIn Hinduism views are broad and range from monism, dualism,
pantheism, panentheism, alternatively called monistic theism by
some scholars, and strictmonotheism, but are not polytheistic as
outsiders perceive the religion to be. Hinduism has often been
confused to be polytheistic as many of Hinduism's adherents are
monists, and view multiple manifestations of the one God or source
of being. Hindu monists see one unity, with the personal Gods,
different aspects of only One Supreme Being, like a single beam of
light separated into colours by a prism, and are valid to worship.
Some of the Hindu aspects of God include Devi, Vishnu, Ganesh, and
Siva. Additionally, like Judaeo-Christian religions which believe
in angels, Hindus also believe in less powerful entities, such as
devas.
Contemporary Hinduism is now divided into four major
divisions,Vaishnavism,Shaivism,Shaktism, andSmartism. Just as Jews,
Christians, and Muslims all believe in one God but differ in their
conceptions of him, Hindus all believe in one God but differ in
their conceptions. The two primary form of differences are between
the two monotheistic religions of Vaishnavism which conceives God
as Vishnu and Shaivism, which conceives God as Shiva. Other aspects
of God are in fact aspects of Vishnu or Shiva; see Smartism for
more information.
Substance monotheism, found e.g. in some indigenous African
religions, holds that the many gods are different forms of a single
underlying substance, and that this underlying substance is God.
This view has some similarities to the Christiantrinitarianview of
three persons sharing one nature.
Inclusive and Exclusive Monotheism: Monotheism can be divided
into different types on the basis of its attitude to polytheism:
inclusive monotheism claims that all polytheistic deities are just
different names for the single monotheistic God; exclusive
monotheism claims that these deities are distinct from the
monotheistic God, and false (either invented, or demonic, in
nature).
Deismis a form of monotheism in which it is believed that one
god exists, however, a Deist comes to his belief through reason,
and rejects any religious revelations such as the Bible, the
Tanakh, or the Qur'an.
Pantheismholds that the Universe is God. Depending on how this
is understood, such a view may be tantamount to atheism, deism or
theism.
Pandeism: combines elements of deism and pantheism, suggests
that a single, sentient God designed the universe, and
thenbecamethe current, non-sentient universe.
Dualismteaches that there are two independent divine beings or
eternal principles, the one good, and the other evil, as set forth
especially in Zoroastrianism, but more fully in its later offshoots
in Gnostic systems, such as Manichaeism.
Kathenotheismis a term coined by the philologist Max Mller to
mean the worship of one god at a time. It is closely related to
monolatrism and polytheism. Mller originally coined the term in
reference to the Vedas; he argued there are different supreme gods
at different times. Kathenotheism is sometimes distinguished as
follows: a monolatrist worships only one God during their whole
life (assuming they do not undergo a conversion); while they accept
that other Gods exist they do not worship them. A kathenotheist
worships one God at a time,depending on their locality or the
time.
Atheismis the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or
of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity,
Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared
from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as
Christianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the
concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who
questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century
it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By
the 20th century, atheism had become the most common position among
scientists, rationalists, and humanists.
Monotheism strictly [and there is no compromise in its 'true'
definition] means the belief in one deity, as the supreme being,
and no other deities are involved. Polytheism, on the other hand,
applies to a belief system that has more than one deity, even if
this belief system is hierarchical, with the supreme being at the
top, and the lesser deities, usually manifestations of this supreme
one.
One would think with such terms available, with straightforward
and unflinching definitions, there won't be complications in their
usage, but various people don't abide by the unwavering and
specifically defined terms, and have their own perceptions of what
these terms are supposed to mean. Case in point, the various terms
mentioned above, aside from disbelief in the existence of deities
(like Atheism), can in actuality be described as either
'monotheism' or 'polytheism', according to whether the belief
systems involve one deity or not.
If we are to accept the definitions of 'polytheism' or
'monotheism', then the terms have to be consistently used across
the board, for all belief systems, and not just a select few, as
one sees fit. Take Christianity for instance, the practitioners of
which will swear that their belief system is "monotheistic": In
Christianity, there is more than one deity [recall the trinitarian
view]. So by definition, in that feature, it is polytheistic in its
inclination. The same can be said of Kemetian belief system in the
various periods, except possibly, the Amarna period of Akhenaten's
"monotheistic" approach to religion. Now, if one argues that
Christianity isn't polytheistic, despite its belief in more than
one deity, while insisting that the Egyptian belief systems of
various time frames are polytheistic, that would be hypocrisy. That
argument modifies the meaning of 'polytheism' in one instance, and
strictly applies the standard definition of the term in another
instance. If one is going to look atmonotheismandpolytheismin terms
of how a deity or deities are worshiped, rather than what the terms
mean by standard definition, then it is no wonder that one finds
elements of both in Kemetian cosmology.
Here is an interesting perspective offered by a discussant going
by the pseudo-moniker of "Imhotep":
I think most people in general have the wrong idea when it comes
to African spiritual systems period. We have to remember that this
is a system of heavily codified myths and it was designed for
initiates in the Shetaut Neter system.
All indiginous African systems are based on the study of energy
and how different degrees of energy interracts with each other.
Since certain energy forces are too subtle for the mind to
conceptualize, they were given anthropomorphic characteristics and
put in story form with varying episodes to help facilitate an
initiate's journey into discoverying self.
The key to understanding the Ta-Merrian system of spirituality,
is to understand the concept of divination and the proper use of
Hekau (words of power). In all African spiritual systems, it is the
concept and manipulation of energy that becomes the focal point of
study.
The Egyptians have always recognized one "supreme" God. A
careful study of the Menefer Theology puts this into perspective. A
study of the Ifa and Dogon systems will shed light on this also. It
is understood that the suprume deity is all-encompassing. This is
why they called it Neb-r-tcher. But they never really had a name
for the supreme deity. They couldn't. No words can conceptualize
what it is.
People must understand exactly what metaphysics is. True
metaphysics is the study of what can be seen in nature and applying
its governing laws to the understanding of the supreme being and
ultimately how to unite with it (Sma Tawi).
So each deity is actually a concept found in nature or a force
that governs it. Since God is all encompassing and it didn't create
anything outside itself, everything is of God and is divine.
In Ifa (and most all African systems), God is just experiencing
itself in many different fashions. God created this plane of
existence to experience what it can't in a plane that has no
physical concepts: it is all consciousness. God is all that exist.
This is why in your stories Ptah speaks words that churn the Nun
into creation or Amun masterbates and completes creation. God only
used aspects of itself to create because nothing exist outside of
God itself.
This is what is currently and in times past taught in the
priesthoods of Africa. They didn't worship various deities. They
called upon the energy pattern of what the deity is supposed to
represent for various things in their lives (to manipulate other
energy). This is what you find with the Dogon, with the Dagara,
amongst the Zulu and in Ifa. It is a recognition of the energy that
governs the universe. What you read on temples and in papyri are
for first level intitiates. Milk before meat.
The above are discussion-board extracts dating to 2005.
Speaking of African spiritual interpretations of the workings of
energy, the contrasts between the material world of the organic and
inorganic, and its associated implications on the issue of darkness
and lightness, another discussion-board poster by the alias of
"Osiris El" offered the following in an interesting discussion that
the present author was a part of, and the present author weighed in
on it as follows...
...So Black is looked at as bad and the Jackal is looked at as
something evil, when Neither Is Negative. Black Is A State Of
Supreme Balancement, You exist longer in dark than light,
If Light is life, you only Live Your Physical Life With Human
And Animals From 1-100 years or up to 120 the most . But in
Darkness Or Death You Are With God and The Angel Forever .
So Light is Temporally and Darkness is Eternal.
Light Is With Man And Darkness Is With God! Think About It .
Before you were Born, you were In This State. And when you die
you Will Return To That State Of Supreme Balancement.
(When Man invented Light, he created Chaos. Murder And All Evil
That Brought The Light Into Existence) Blackness is An Abode Of
Peace, It is the Light that You cut off when You're Ready To Sleep
, to bring upon Peace, I Think You've Been Fooled By Racism .
The Jackal just happen to be the Animal Symbol Used By The Neter
(Deity) Anubu (Anubia).
Most People Might ask, are Jackals really Blacks? Answer; No!
There is no such specie as a black jackal, the real reason why the
black jackal is depicted as black, can not be revealed to those who
is found not worthy. But little is revealed and can be told, it is
symbolic of "The nine black knights"
Why is it, once a person passes away, it is looked at as
something depressing Or as such a tragedy? Foremost, it is because
it is something Unknown.
If you join God when you die, why do you, as a religious person,
try to Stay Alive So Bad?
If you already gave yourself to God, you should be happy to die,
Right! Other cultures don't view death as something bad but accept
it as something that Is A Natural Part Of The Cycle Of Life To Be
Celebrated, as the Soul Moves On To The Next Realm"
The Jackal [Anubis]
The above is an extract taken from a discussion-board archives,
a topic titled:Why The Wearing Of Black To Funerals? Egyptian
Knowledgefrom June 2004.
Personal weighing in...
The Sun embodies:Regeneration via its cyclic rise and setting ,
and is the cause of liveliness at the same time through its light.
Thus, while the positioning of the Sun vis--vis the earth is
cyclic, it marks the temporary phases of the interplay of light and
dark. Darkness in itself however, is in a non-random state, and is
ETERNAL, while light [actually the product of disorderly/random
dispersion of photons from the source of emission (Energy source),
like the Sun], as the aforementioned poster claimed, is a TEMPORARY
phase.
I tend to think of the Pharaonic concept of the"living"kings
identification with Heru [the son of Ausar], and the passed away
kings identification with Ausar [the father of Heru], as being
correlated to the aforementioned cyclic nature of sunrise and
sunset, whereby the living king represents the
temporary"light"phase of life, while the dead one is in its eternal
[and peaceful]"dark"state in the Nederland ordwt, and that this is
a process that was envisioned to keep going [reoccurring events of
life, in the same manner as the suns cycles vis--vis the earth] in
cycles; i.e. for every ruler who passed away, there will be a
replacement by a living counterpart. Heru thus represents the
temporary phase of the kings soul, while Ausar, represents the
eternal phase of the kings soul.Meanwhile, as part of the dualism
in the material world of the "balancing" between forces and
counter-forces, including that manifested in belief systems as good
and evil, we have St/Set for example; although this deity had
attained notoriety in several periods of the Dynastic era, it
attained one that of strength under the Rameside Dynasty. In its
antagonistic personification, it actually embodied "chaos", storms,
desertification, conflict/war, destruction and other adverse
natural phenomena. Notwithstanding its anthropomorphic renditions
in ancient Egyptian story telling, it was actually the embodiment
of all "adverse" phenomena, which may be brought about by either an
inorganic or organic agent. Hence, it is not accidental that Set's
personification ran antagonistic to that of say, Asr
(Ausar's)/Osiris, with his embodiment of regeneration/rebirth and
fertility. So religious thought like "evil" doesn't do much justice
in characterizing Set, in my opinion; for instance, can inorganic
phenomenon like weather storm or desertification be characterized
as "evil"? Something to think about.
In looking at the aforementioned piece from Osiris El, with
regards to the Egyptic viewpoint that,
Before you were Born, you wereIn This State. Andwhen you
dieyouWill Return To That State Of Supreme Balancement.,
there is a sense of scientific reality or parallel to this
perspective. Although, biologists are still struggling with
understanding of what "life" is exactly, or how it was precisely
brought about, life in science is viewed as an entity that cannot
be seen, but its effects are seen. Life here, is claimed to be in
an eternal state, whereby life cannot be recreated, nor be
destroyed. In science, it is claimed that a single life is being
distributed across the board in all living organisms, not separate
or newly created life for every individual born. When organisms
die, the biological elements of the dead, i.e. the corpse, go back
to nature; e.g., we all know about body decomposition and the C14
isotope. Life however, continues; it's just that it is taken away
from the dead organism, but not destroyed. Outside of science, some
might interpret this as the soul. So in science, we are once again
confronted with the notion of the temporary and eternal stages of
the life.
Other interesting excerpts, with regards to Kemetian perspective
of life
From Faulkner's "Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts"
The translations for Utterance 12 were ommitted, because they
are lost
Utterance 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18
"I give you your head, I fasten your head to the bones for
you."
"I give him his eyes, that he may be content - a htp
offering"
"Geb has given you your eyes, that you may be content"
"the Eye of Horus- water a nmst-jar"
"O Thoth, put for him his head on him - water, a ds-jar"
"He has brought it for him - water, a drinking cup"
With respect to the above piece, a poster of an old Nile Valley
forum, by the name Allah wrote:
The receiver of the organs in these passage, is not necessarily
getting new organs. WhatNtis trying to convey is that she and her
counterpartGbgiveWSR(the deceased or MENTALLY dead) stimulus, by
which the purpose of the head and eyes come into being, being they
provide the canvas of the night sky, as well as the landscape to
use as an observational anchor.
All of these stimuli are in fact synthesized and processed
through the "third" Eye or the man's intelligence (Eye of Hr (Horus
or Heru) ) The wordnmstis the female form of the wordnmswhich means
veil or covering. With the suffix, this becomes a water covering or
jar. The worddsortsmeans pot or jar also. The root of the
wordnmst,nms, is related to head covering, and in factnmsis related
again to the NameWmn(Amen) which represents mentality, and the head
being the center of activity of the mentality.
Ds is related to knife, charcoal, chalk, or other implement of
making marks, and thus this is how the relation with Djhty (Djehuti
or Thoth) comes into play since those in the offices of Djhty are
in charge of writing and communication.
Thus this series of utterances illustrates the development of
awareness (head and eyes andnmstjar) and the communication of this
knowledge through writing (dsjar).
Vessels in this case not only deal with the funerary furniture,
but their interiors also represent the shell which represents one
field of view, as well as ones canvas of record. Basically the
point of this series of instructions is to instruct the rites of
passage candidate in the art of literacy, which was a valued and
rare commidity in theHpyRiver Valley.
This piece again highlights the temporary [living] stage,
whereby one is enabled in awareness, and the art of communicating
it via the organic matter of ones head and its components [eyes,
brains, mouth and so forth], and enhancing this communication by
way of writing, with the hand being the main organic matter here.
Basically, the organic body which acts as the shell of eternal life
or soul, is a "temporary" medium through which the life or soul is
manifested when an individual is alive and doing all those daily
activities in the light of day [sunlight] and at night [after
sunset]. Geb/Gb, as the poster above pointed out, should be
identified as Material Science patron, or more appropriately,
patron of "solid" entity, rather than simply being passed off
relatively ambiguously, as patron of Earth. On this, directly from
the poster Allah,...
In the profane scientific literature, Gb was not listed as a
patron of a particular planet in conjunction with listing of the
other visible planets. Also Gb's association with other Patrons and
Matrons involved with STATES OF MATTER, such asShwandTfnt(Wind and
Moisture).
The above are extracts from an oldNile Valley forumposts, in a
discussion titled:Mr (Pyramid) text study for Science and Education
ut. 1-18from 2005.Atum as noted earlier, was the personification of
the "creative force" of Nun, the limitless premival water devoid of
light, which was also given an attribute of the Sun in particular,
the setting sun; it is not the most fundamental expression of
'solid' [for example, an atom is even more fundamental as a solid
than the Sun is; the latter is made up of the former], which is the
role played by Geb. There is a difference between the Sun which is
another physical manifestation of ensembles of the most fundamental
[microscopic] solids and the fundamental essence of Solid, as a
state of matter. This feature of Atum is what paved way for an
eventual synchronization with Ra, another Sun deity, as noted.
...however there are some things that the present author would
like to assess herein. In looking at the intro notes, it is indeed
safe to characterize concepts dealing with the symbolism of the Sun
as an element of deity representing the Sun cycles vis--vis the
earth, the interplay of Heru and Ausar in dedication to the two
"states" of existence of the Pharaoh, the insights into
Thoth/Djehuti as an intellectual element, Geb and Nut as the
embodiment of the inorganic natural states/organization of
microscopic solids [aka atoms] which has been likened to the
comparison of land and atmosphere, likewise Shw and Tfnt with
respect to gases and liquids, and so forth for the rest of the
neteru, as "Pantheistic". Does it then make sense that the idea of
"one" invisible "God", the "creator of the universe", as being part
and parcel of such concepts, is NOT "supernatural"?
Well, let's explore...
Many of us are by now familiar with how the creation stories
molded after those from the pre-dynastic Nile Valley concepts were
harmonized. The primeval waters:
According to the writings of the Egyptians,there was a time when
neither heaven nor earth existed, and when nothing had being except
the boundless primeval water, which was, however, shrouded with
thick darkness.In this condition the primeval water remained for a
considerable time, notwithstanding that it contained within it the
germs of the things which afterwards came into existence in this
world itself.-Budge
Naturally, this would embody a time inaccessible to the memory
of humankind, but one that is presumed to be the case before the
being of celestial bodies/planets, and naturally, including the
organic world of planet earth. The idea of eternity of nothingness
prior to the organization of microscopic solids [atoms] into the
different states of gases, liquids and solids. This state of
nothingness, i.e. before the coming about the structured cosmos,
was personified as Nun/Nn
Budge continues...
At length the spirit of the primeval waterfelt the desire for
creative activity, and having uttered the word, the world sprang
straightway into being in the form which had already beendepicted
in the mind of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted
in its creation.The next act of creation was theform of a germ, or
egg, from which sprang Ra, the Sun-god, within whose shining form
was embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit
Such was the outline of creation as described by the late Dr. H.
Brugsch, and it is curious to see how closely his views coincide
with a chapter in thePapyrus of Nesi Amsupreserved in the British
Museum.
Hence, light eventually came into being, presumably out of this
state of nothingness with the formation of light-emitting sources
like the Sun and other stars; basically, the coming about of light
in the "unstructured" state of darkness and timeliness. If one
examines Nt and Gb, one sees a similar talk of the creation,
whereby atmosphere and planet/solids are formed, and the
interactions of which, often visually exemplified in the person of
Nt and Gb engaging in an intercourse. The same with Shw and Tfnt in
wind/air/gases, and moisture/oceans/liquids respectively. If the
present author didnt know any better, it would seem that the
aforementioned stage of nothingness, i.e. eternal state of darkness
and timeliness may well be equated with the invisible god. But lets
see what Budge tells about this
The late Dr. H. Brugsch collected a number of the
epithets[published in Religion pages 99-101]which are applied to
the gods, from texts of all periods; and from these we may see that
the ideas and beliefs of the Egyptians concerning God were almost
identical with those of the Hebrew and Muhammadans at later
periods. When classified these epithets read thus[Budge provides
more examples, we'll just stick to a few] :-
God is One and alone, and none other existeth with Him; God is
the One, the One Who hath made all things.
God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the
great spirit of the Egyptians, the divine spirit.
God is from the beginning, and He hath been from the beginning;
He hath existed from of old and was when nothing else had being. He
existed when nothing else existed, and what existeth He created
after He hand come into being. He is the father of beginnings.
God is the eternal One, He is eternal and infinite; and endureth
for ever and aye; He hath endured for countless ages, and He shall
endure to all eternity.
God is the hidden Being, and no man hath known His form. No man
hath been able to see out His likeness; He is hidden from gods and
men, and He is a mystery unto His creatures
God is merciful unto those who reverence Him, and He heareth him
that calleth upon Him. He protected the weak against the strong,
and He heareth the cry of him that is bound in fetters; He judgeth
between the mighty and the weak. God knoweth him that knoweth Him,
and He protected him that followed Him.
We have now to consider thevisible emblem, and the type and
symbol of God, namely the Sun-god Ra, who was worshipped in Egypt
in prehistoric times.According to the writings of the Egyptians,
there was a time when neither heaven nor earth existed, and when
nothing had being except the boundless primeval water, which was,
however, shrouded with thick darkness. In this condition the
primeval water remained for a considerable time, notwithstanding
that it contained within it the germs of the things which
afterwards came into existence in this world itself...
This brings us to the question confronting us: IF this state
primeval water state can be equated with the invisible one God, can
the invisible/formless eternal God then be considered supernatural?
[note: the one would connote the point that there was nothing else,
but this state of primeval waters prior to formation of the
structured cosmos]
The other side of coin
Those who feel that primeval water cannot be equated with the
invisible/formless one God , the question to them would be, do you
then perceive the one God as preceding the primeval state? How
would this be known from Kemetic concepts?
The above are extracts from a discussion-board archives, dating
to
2006.______________________________________________________________
*Speaking of "life", here's something that might offer an
interesting read. The scientific communitydont know what life
actually is, but that hasnt stopped some of them scientists from
trying tocreate itanyway...
August 19th, 2007
"We're all sort of thinking that the next origin of life will be
in somebody's lab," said David Deamer, a University of California,
Santa Cruz, biochemistry professor who is one of theleading experts
trying to create life. But ask Deamer what life is, and he responds
by saying it's best to describe it, not define it
Look for changes in religion, too.
"As knowledge has (been) added, religions have adapted," Venter
said. "I don't see why this is any different. We're pushing the
frontiers of knowledge, understanding life on this planet."
Venter dismisses suggestions that scientists are playing God as
media sensationalism. And Collins, a scientist who talks at length
about his faith, said he finds it interesting that the people who
most often use the phrase "playing God" usually don't believe in
God.
"Playing God" is a secular, not religious, term, said Ted
Peters, a professor at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley,
Calif., and author of the book "Playing God." He said people who
worry about that are really talking about tinkering with
nature.
"What Craig Venter is doing is an extremely complicated form of
animal breeding," Peters said. "We're going to be changing the face
of the planet no matter what. The question is do we want to do it
responsibly or not?"
One of themen trying to make life from scratch, Mark Bedau,
understands the worries. A philosophy professor from Reed College
in Oregon, Bedau is also the chief operating officer of the
synthetic biology firm ProtoLife in Venice, Italy.
His team and others are trying tomake single-cell organisms from
chemical components, creating a genetic system that multiplies and
a metabolism that takes in energy from the environment. Scientists
say they are close to completing a key first step, creation of a
vesicle, or container, for the cell.
"We are doing things which were thought to be the province, in
some quarters, of God like making new forms of life," Bedau said in
a phone interview from Venice. "Life is very powerful, and if we
can get it to do what we want ... there are all kinds of good
things that can be done.
"Playing God is a good thing to doas long as you're doing it
responsibly," he said.
In another revelation, related to the issue at hand:
One of the leaders in the field, Jack Szostak at Harvard Medical
School,predicts that within the next six months, scientists will
report evidence that the first step creating a cell membrane is
"not a big problem." Scientists are using fatty acids in that
effort.
Szostak is alsooptimistic about the next step getting
nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, to form a working genetic
system.His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists
add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution
could simply take over.
"We aren't smart enough to design things, wejust let evolution
do the hard work and then we figure out what happened," Szostak
said.
Sources for the excerpts
above:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-08-19-life_N.htmPosted
byMystery Solverat4:42 PMEmail ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare
to FacebookShare to PinterestLabels:Ancient Egyptian,Archival,Nile
Valley,Religion,SpiritualismNo comments:Post a CommentLinks to this
postCreate a LinkNewer PostOlder PostHomeSubscribe to:Post Comments
(Atom)REAL-TIME EARTH AND MOON PHASETRANSLATE
Powered byTranslatePowered byTranslateBLOG ARCHIVE 2014(2)
2013(6) 2012(8) 2011(18) 2010(22) 2009(21) 2008(59) December(4)
November(2) Nov 21(1) Monotheism before Akhenaten? Nov 15(1)
October(3) September(9) August(1) July(2) June(7) May(2) April(6)
March(5) February(5) January(13)ABOUT ME
Mystery SolverThe internet is obviously an invaluable tool, but
it can also work the other wayi.e. comes with certain risks,
however far in between. Sparing oneself from potential identity
theft or abuse warrants a good measure of anonymity. Hence, the
turn towards a pseudonym. This site was not conceived with view to
winning blogosphere "popularity contests". Attention-grabbing
controversial posturing is out of character here, although it's
recognized that many out there do have opinions on any given topic,
and that topics which instill polarizing viewpoints may indeed crop
up by chance. The overriding goal here is to build a one-stop
referential spot for things African, and in doing so, hopefully
ease off the flood of misinformation about the continent. Reader
commentary isn't restricted, provided that it's done in a
respectful insult-free tone. Violation thereof will be met with
rejection without reservation. Hope the site proves to be
informative to those who care to avail themselves of information
gathered herein. Be sure to check the "Developments" link on the
top of the page, to look for possible updates elsewhere in the
blog!View my complete profileLINKS CONTAINING RELATED SUBJECT
MATTER - NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTENTS OF RESPECTIVE SITES PubMed
- One Stop Guide to DNA and Medical Journals ISOGG Y-DNA Tree
peopling of the nile valleyINTERNAL LINKS ATI/One-Stop Africa
Timeline Index ATI One-Stop Referential Page on DNA notes ATI
Encyclopedia on Human PaleontologyPOTENTIALLY-INTERACTIVE LINKS
Nile Valley Civlization discussion board - An underused but
potentially informative site! NILE VALLEY PEOPLES - BlogSEARCH THIS
BLOGTop of Form
Bottom of FormMY BLOG LIST Africa: Timeline Index & Other
IssuesUnity, Harmony and Peace?11 months ago Fun Stuff - Into "My"
Art Space: Ideas On CanvasEffects of Tones and Contrasts2 years
agoPOPULAR POSTS Ancient Nile Valley influences in Extra-Nile
Valley ArtHerein we will look at various Nile Valley influences in
contemporaneous cultures around the Mediterranean sea and its
spread thereof. For i... Side-lock of YouthWhile the ancient
Egyptian side-lock is a familiar sight, it is also a somewhat
understudied featurethat appears on mainly adolescent figu...
Africa Timeline Index: West to East And North to SouthATI One-Stop
Timeline Index The goal here is to compile a chronology of
developments across continental Africa. ...but for starters: ...
Getting to Know Ancient Egyptian ArtThere is a perception in some
quarters that few Ancient Egyptian artistic rendering tell us about
reality or literal interpretation of situ... Examples of Cultural
Similarities between those in the Nile Valley and those in other
areas of AfricaThe goal here is to highlight cultural parallelism
or similarities between Dynastic Egypt and elsewhere in Africa from
various sources; mind...THE HUMAN JOURNEY
Whether it's Paternal or Maternalgenealogy ultimately takes you
back to one source: Africa! (Click on the pic to enlarge)
Picture Window template. Powered byBlogger.
Page 1 of 25