See likes

See likes given/taken


Your posts liked by others

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 57
Post info No. of Likes
The Mysteries of Horus and Set The story of Horus and Set is very well known, perhaps the best known story of the Egyptians. These entities and their story are extremely important to understanding religion, and especially for understanding occultism. Yet all most of us see are a single, perverted version of the story that originated long after the beings in question, and have been lost and twisted repeatedly over millennium. Having looked into these topics in extreme depth, I would like to discuss these famous Neteru.

Stellar v. Solar

It is commonly understood that Set was the brother and murder of Osiris, who sexually assaulted then battled Osiris’ child Horus, Horus eventually winning kingship over Egypt (Budge, 1969). One of the most basic reasons this is appealing is because it fits snuggly with Christian culture and morality, clear lines being drawn between “good” and “evil”, with Osiris/Horus being an obvious precursor of Christ. These similarities should be more than enough reason for the occultist to doubt this version of the story. The Cult of Osiris played a role so massive it is hard to conceive, from Egypt all the way to modern religion. It gave us our first heaven-like afterlife, our first true villain god, the original Solar religion, our first savior god. But this story needs to be disregarded specifically because it is so blatantly distorted. At the end of the New Kingdom period, Set became fully demonized due to the foreign rulers who the xenophobic Egyptians despised (Te Velde, 1967). The Coptics only took this farther, though many of their rituals do make reference to Set under other names (Webb, 2011). Prior to this massive downfall, the religion of Osiris had dominated Egyptian thought since the early dynasties, and we can even see where the Pyramid Texts have been altered in order to make them more Osirian (The Pyramid Texts Online, n.d.). As Egypt grew, this very early and useful religious philosophy spread throughout and became dominate, forever changing Egyptian from their Stellar to Solar religions.

The stellar religion was based on a separation of the Self from the Divine, in which the dead individual would rise even above the level of the Gods (The Pyramid Texts Online, n.d.; Te Velde, 1967; Aquino, 2014). This is what we see in the Setian Pyramid Texts, which the dead rising above even the gods of creation.. Further, the physical body was vastly less important, with mummification not even being part of the earlier burials at Nubt, both the original location for the Cult of Set, and the birthplace of things such as written human language (Morgan, 2005). Material goods were not shunned though, and we find grave goods even in these proto-Egyptian graves. Interestingly, broken pots in early burials contain some of the first examples we have of isolated, point down pentagrams. Acts in life were what led to one being accepted amongst the ranks of the Gods after death, their virtues and what they achieved. A choice was also given between Horus and Set, leading to essentially separate afterlives (Pyramid Texts, n.d.). The circumpolar stars were associated with Set, especially Ursa Major (Te Velde, 1967; Aquino, 2014; Levenda, 2008; Webb, 2011; Flowers, 2012, Gordon, 2001).The circumpolar, “imperishable” stars were the focus of afterlife thought, as they were separate from the cycles of earth, the sun, and even the stars, as they never sank below the horizon (Webb, 2011; Levenda, 2008). This is much closer to the Eastern idea of being free from the cycles of reincarnation than the obeying of rules and “heaven” found in the West.

The original Egyptian death cults were based around the circumpolar, or imperishable, stars and so was the domain of Set (Te Velde, 1967; Aquino, 2014; Levenda, 2008; Webb, 2011; Flowers, 2012). Horus and Set, together, created a path, ladder, or stairway for the initiated dead from earth to the imperishable stars (Te Velde, 1967, Pyramid Texts Online, n.d.). Some of this can still be seen in the earlier pyramid texts, where Set is still so crucial to the ascension of the dead. Throughout even the Osirian texts we see traces of the original Set, who demands of the gods to deify the dead. “Set and Nephthys speak to the gods: N has become like an imperishable star: if he wishes you shall live you shall live, if he wishes you shall die you shall die”. The pharaoh “howls like Set howls” and the gates of heaven open before him. The dead is “like Set when he lifts himself and ascends to the heavens” (Pyramid Texts Online, n.d.). The importance of Set to deification of the Self is immense and obvious. This only changes with the coming of the Osiris cult. Horus is also referred to often, working with Set. Rather than a savior god of some sort, Horus is shown as the equal to Set, powerful in all the ways he is not, helping the dead ascend (Te Velde, 1967). There is no evidence of Horus relying on Osiris or Isis in many of the texts, except the obviously Osirian ones.

Solar religion, on the other hand, was based on uniting the Self with the Divine, in which after death an individual would either become identified with a Neter, such as Osiris, or would live a very similar life in a land still ruled by the gods (Budge, 1898). The physical body slowly becomes more and more important, as it was created by the gods and had to remain pure. It was required for life after death. Obeying the rules (such as with the negative confessions) is how one received acceptance into the afterlife, being judged by the Gods in the end to see if the dead is worthy (Budge, 1898). There was no choice of what came next, it was either nonexistence or unity/submission to Horus (originally) or Osiris (after interfering with the original relationship of Horus and Set). The focus of thought was on the sun’s cycle through the sky and the cycles of nature that affected daily Egyptian life (Levenda, 2008). Rather than striving for heroic like immortality, Egyptians simply wanted a predictable and constant life where they did not have to worry about things, such as if the Nile would not flood because they had gone against the rules of the Gods. Darkness became a threat, later to be demonized and shunned, and representative of all that went against the Solar theology. This is where Western religion stems from, obeying the rules for postmortem rewards and hoping to not upset the Gods.

To many these differences may seem insignificant, but the occultist and magician can see the vast significance between these two points of view. Horus and Set were originally seen as equals, where Horus represented things most relative to this life, and Set was the God of the afterlife. As many know, the image of Set is actually based off of a fantastic animal, it is something not real unlike most other deities (Te Velde, 1967; Budge, 1969; Aquino, 2014). What most don’t know is that in early Egyptian history the Set animal was often seen next to a winged, hawk headed Griffin (Te Velde, 1967). These two fabricated creatures were seen as two sides of the same coin, their design representing their traits, such as the forked, serpent like tail of Set and its close association with “Darkness”, as well as the obvious serpentine symbolism of the circumpolar stars especially at the time of early Egypt (where alpha draconis was the pole star) (Levenda, 2013). It is only with the rise of solar religion in Egypt that the dark side of the coin became “evil”.

Where did this Solar religion come from? It makes sense that in pre-dynastic Egypt a storm God would be given the same respect as a solar god, as the nomadic Egyptians would have relied on rain water before the Nile (Te Velde, 1967). We also know that other local religions, such as the Sumerians, already had pantheons where human beings were crushed below the weight the Gods. It is more than possible that Osiris was an imported God from foreign lands. This is not to be confused with the fact that Set was a god of foreigners (Budge, 1969). There was a massive mixing of tribes in the land of Egypt, and there is no reason to think that all of these were “native” Egyptians (Grimal, 1994). The fact that we recognize many of these gods or their forms as imported certainly helps. It also explains why Osiris is supposed to have claimed ancient rulership over Egypt, and why the Osiris had to repurpose Horus to validate their religion – they were outsiders. It also explains why it took so long, and why Set also had to be demonized. In other words, stellar religion was actual Egyptian religion, and solar religion was imported and aided by the changes to Egyptian societies.

Another interesting aspect of all this is that the original Egyptian burials in Nubt (whose main deity was Set) had very different burials that did not rely on the preservation of the physical body. Bodies were buried in the fetal position, rather exposed to the elements, with their head cut off facing the opposite direction of the body (Te Velde, 1967). Ascension was earned in life, and then one became deified, a rather straight forward process that fits well in dualistic systems. It also seems that the original deification given by Horus and Set was much different then later afterlives. The dead was truly deified, they became like a Neteru, a god or Form, a manifestation of either their lord Horus or Set. It is interesting to stop here and look at the Egyptian conceptions of the soul.

Tangent: Aspects of the Egyptian Soul

The Khat or Body: this could be considered the physical body, but it is more comparable to that which holds the body together, that which causes cells to recreate near-perfectly, the natural energy generated by the body. It is comparable to bodies of light, astral bodies, things of that nature, but is more or less identified with the physical self. So your body, nervous system, organs, physical brain, skeleton.

The Ren or Name: This is what a thing is called, from inanimate objects and forces to people’s or location’s names. Think of Ren as if everyone you know in professional life suddenly knew all your user names for online forums. If you’re reading this, you’ve probably shared plenty of ideas on your ideology that does not need to be known by everyone and their mothers. Maybe not if you have well accepted beliefs, but with something like occultism I would never want all my coworkers and clients to have direct access to all my beliefs. So I have a “secret” or “magical” name that give me the power to keep this one side secret while still openly discussing it. Even a regular name has power though. Just call someone to summon them, to connect deeper with them, even to show them how angry you are depending on context. When we consider names as “what things are called” we are almost taking all language into account.

The Sheut or Shadow: To the Egyptians the shadow was literally the shadow cast by the body. It was considered to contain aspects of the individual, which is actually entirely true. I find this one the most difficult to integrate (the rest actually are rather easy to understand), because a shadow is pretty understandable. But even when I hear the word “shadow” I have to think of Carl Jung and his archetype of the shadow. The shadow is the completely dark, obscured part of an individual, which they themselves often do not understand. An example of this is when someone else’s actions annoy us, but in reality it’s because we hate the very same trait in ourselves.

The Ib or “Heart-Soul” or Ego: I think “heart soul” is an awesome primitive term for what we now refer to as the ego. It has the best and worst of us locked away in there, it’s driven by primal urges and emotion rather that rational thought. It is the ego that opposes the shadow, hides it away so our pride is not hurt. It was the heart, or in this case the ego, that was weighed in afterlife ceremonies to decide whether the individual was worthy or not. Why? The ego/heart has no filter and helps us understand who we truly are deep down.

The Ba or Consciousness or Soul: The Ba is the actual individual, the consciousness itself, or isolate intelligence, or psyche, there are plenty words for it. The Ba relies on the Khat to have a place to grow, connected through the Ib, which itself arises from the Khat. If the Ba is worked in the proper ways throughout life, it can become more powerful than the Khat and Ib and thus survive physical death.

The Ka or Higher Self: The Egyptian Gods, known as Neteru (Neter for one), were quite similar to and likely the inspiration for Platonic Forms, perfect but abstract aspects of nature that then manifest in different ways. When a human being is born, a perfect Form of them comes into existence as well – the Ka. If an individual can get in touch with and align themselves (the Ba) with the Ka they will essentially be living the perfect life for them.

Akh or Deified Individual: If the Ba lines up with the Ka and survives physical death, it is possible for it to itself become a Neter. To the Egyptians these beings would be indistinguishable from other Neteru. Basically this is “self-deification”, the individual becoming a god through their own efforts.

Hours the Younger v. Horus the Elder

There is also the issue of Horus the Younger vs. Horus the Elder. Horus the Younger is the son of Osiris and Isis, and considered to be the 10th deity to come out of the Ennead (Budge, 1969). Horus the Younger is essentially the same as Osiris, but reborn and ruling the world of Life as opposed to Osiris ruling the world of Death. This may seem confusing, and it is important to pause to discuss the Egyptian understanding of the gods, the Neteru. The Egyptians did not believe in physical beings who had dramas in the ways of other religions. Rather, the Neteru are similar to, and likely the inspiration of, Platonic Forms (Aquino, 2015). So to say Horus the Younger is a lower manifestation of Osiris is not as nonsensical as it seems. Think of gnostic Aeons, for comparison. Horus the Younger represents a less pure version of what Osiris does, from ruler-ship to stasis. Understanding the Neteru also helps us understand that Horus the Younger is a perversion of Horus the Elder, the original Horus. Much like Christianity adopting religious dates or saviors from other religions to make it more accessible, the Osirians repurposed Horus the Elder to promote their own religion, where this timeless and ancient god was actually the son of Osiris. The idea of Horus the Younger must also be discarded with the rest of the Osirian interpretation of the myth.

So what was Horus the Elder, and what was Its relationship to Set? The Cults of Horus and Set are the two oldest known cults in human history - far predating Egypt, we find the two cults already established in pre-historical Egypt (Te Velde, 1967; Aquino, 2015). The ancients did not see Horus and Set as eternal enemies, but rather Horus and Set represented the fundamental duality that the Egyptians saw in all things. Horus and Set were, themselves, the foundation of all Egyptian religion. It is true that Horus and Set were seen as light and dark, day and night, stability and chaos, tradition and confusion, but there was no concept of them being “good” or “evil”. They were both necessary. There was also a unity between them, rather than the division commonly represented (Te Velde, 1967). Again, the Osirian myth must be discarded. This clears up many of the issues, such as how Egypt didn’t view any Neteru as evil, or how there was no prolonged combat or anything close between any of the other gods (Aquino, 2015). In fact, it’s likely that Horus and Set never were originally fighting until the Osirian religion wrote it as such. Rather, studies of the myth suggest that the relationship between Horus and Set was originally a romantic, consensual one (Te Velde, 1967). Mertz (2008) even points out that the story may have been seen as epic and humorous, similar to the tales of other culture. As we will see, this is likely the case on the outside, but initiated understanding of the stories will show things were different for those on the inside. The original myth actually promotes the idea of a union of Horus and Set, which produces Thoth. Horus fills Set with his sperm through trickery, which in the end brings about Thoth, who rises from Set’s forehead. Further, the eye represented the power of Horus, where the testicles were the power of Set. Set attained power from Horus, the power of Order, and Horus attained power from Set, the power of Creation and Change (Te Velde, 1967). This is similar to the Ying-Yang, where the white side contains a black dot and visa versa. Together these two forces create Thoth, he who writes the universe into existence.

Remember how the Neteru are similar to Platonic Forms? It should not be thought that two beings were conceived as literally having sex to create another. Rather than a myth similar to that of Christianity and Solar religions, we see that the story of Horus and Set is much more Egyptian in nature, perhaps somewhat anticlimactically. So to sum up thus far, Horus and Set, un-perverted, were the foundational polarity of the universe, which unites to create all the cosmos. As Neteru/Forms, all other Neteru should be understood as manifestations of the two. Anubis, for example, is a lesser manifestation of Set, which explains why Set is understood as his “father” and the two are sometimes used interchangeably in texts. It is also why Ra has the same head as Horus, for Solar religion is a worship of Order/Horus, which the Egyptian state publically promoted.
When Osiris absorbed Horus he absorbed the Solar aspects of Egyptian religion. With the demonization of Set, a morality arose and a higher value placed on the Solar over the Stellar. Now deification was rewarded by the gods directly for proper behavior, though there were obviously loopholes for the high class. The material world became increasingly important, and with it the body, starting the first move from Egyptian esotericism to exotericism. These effects are still felt today in the on-going fight between the Solar Abrahamic religions and the Solar materialistic philosophies, and even in occultism which remains mostly Solar in nature.

A large part of the history of Horus and Set is the idea that Horus is better, more virtuous, more important, superior, etc. to Set in some way. But it seems quite possible that originally, Set was actually seen as the superior Neter. One of the main reasons for this is that Set was known as the “Son of Nut”, the Egyptian Neter representing the skies in their entirety (Te Velde, 1967). The “Son of Nut” referenced Set in all cases, nobody else was considered the son or daughter of Nut directly (Te Velde, 1967). This is likely a carry-over from the time when Set was seen as the head of the Neteru. There are, in fact, references that have Set as the one and only Neter holding the latter to heaven, whereas we do not see this with Horus. That Horus as the sun (later Ra) could be defeated by Apep, whereas Set could not and was actually the main defender, further shows the importance and power of Set. Even in the Pyramid Texts we see that Horus makes the Earth quake, but Set makes the Sky shake (Pyramid Texts Online, n.d.). Another interesting thing to notice is that there are cases, such as in the texts of Unas, where the king is referred to as **a** Horus, rather than a specific entity named Horus. It may be that Horus has always been associated with the actual ruler of the nome or country, who we know was viewed as a literal demigod. To become a “Horus” can be seen as becoming a king over the Earth and/or over the Neteru, which matches exactly with the stellar afterlife ideals of the early Egyptians. This could also explain why only the Horus name was generally preferred for the Pharaoh name, despite the two Neteru clearly being viewed as equally important.

In the end, however, it does not really matter if one viewed Horus and Set as somehow better. Most likely it can down to preference, which is why Unas was allowed to choose between Horus and Set upon reaching the Imperishable Stars (Pyramid Texts Online, n.d.). Following a balanced path between the two, or picking one over the other, is up to the individual. But what can we know about the nature of this choice between Horus and Set? For one thing, we know that Horus was a pharaoh-like role, where the dead became identified even with Atum (who preceded Horus and Set in mythology), king over the Neteru. Set, on the other hand, was known as “the separator”, being drawn as a fantastic animal and represented even in the earliest myths as an outsider (Te Velde, 1967).

The Osiris Myth

One thing to clear up is that I do not think we should reject the Osiris myth all together, as in ignore it. Rather, it does not describe the original understanding of the Neteru Set and Horus. It can, however, be used to understand modern religion and how it varies with ancient religion. The Egyptians saw the skies as the literal heavens, with the stars representing a physical form of the Neteru, or being where the Neter was supposed to live or exist. (Clark, 2000). This matches closely with the Hermetic understanding of “as above, so below”, where the physical heavens helped to understand the divine world. Horus, the god of Light, represented the daytime and the sun. Horus was the ruler of the earth, surrounded by other gods of the zodiac or starts. Set, as the god of Dark, was represented by nighttime, and explicitly the circumpolar northern starts (Te Velde, 1967; Aquino, 2014; Levenda, 2008). This means either Set or Horus was in the sky *at all times*. It is interesting to note that Set, as being “higher” then Horus, can possibly be seen as “more divine”, but I do not personally know if the Egyptians understood that the stars were still “up” when the sun was, or that they were farther away. More likely is that Horus and Set were seen as equals.

In the Osiris myth, Set and Osiris are brothers and Osiris is the ruler of Egypt (Budge, 1969). Set, jealous of Osiris’ power, murders him. Throughout the story Isis impregnates herself using the body of Osiris, giving birth to Horus. Horus and Set battle, with Horus eventually winning rulership over Egypt. This is obviously extremely simplified! In the Osiris myth cycle, Set is an archetypal villain, a clear precursor to the modern Satan/Devil. He is jealous, violent, a heavy handed ruler, a rapist and pedophile, and hated by everyone including his wife. We know, of course, that this was a twisting of the original Set by the followers of Osiris in early dynastic Egypt, especially starting around Dynasty IV-VI. Yet this was the version that became one of the most well-known and well preserved myths of Egyptian – and human – history. There are many interesting mysteries to Horus and Set here though, and we will start by looking at the more mysterious Set.

One of the big things that jumps right out is that Set is the initiator of Osiris. Osiris needed to die in order to become ruler of the Duat (afterlife) (Te Velde, 1967). While this seems obvious at face value, we see that it was not publically acknowledged by the Egyptians, and only known to the priesthoods. This increases Set’s importance for the initiated, and his malevolence for the uninitiated. It was also Set, in the form of a bull, who carries the body of Osiris into the Duat (Te Velde, 1967). This is a holdover from Set’s original role as a guide into the next world, formerly the circumpolar stars, and now a mostly ethereal, “divine” location. Without Set Osiris would never die, and never make it to the underworld. Further, the Opening of the Mouth ceremony was crucial to both the Neteru and the dead (Te Velde, 1967; Levenda, 2008; Webb, 2011). This is what brought the spirit of a Neter into a statue, or allowed you to talk in the afterlife. Like everyone, this ritual was necessary for Osiris. The key to the opening of the mouth ceremony was a tool known as the Adze, which literally opened the mouth. This tool was shaped as the constellation Ursa Major, one of the constellations most associated with Set, and made from materials believed to be sacred to Set (Te Velde, 1967; Levenda, 2008; Webb, 2011; Flowers, 2012). Obviously it was still realized, even if only behind closed doors, that Set was extremely necessary to the Osiris cycle.

As for Horus, he is seen as the son of Osiris, nephew of Set. It is in this tale where we see Set gouging out Horus’ eye, and Horus ripping off Set’s testicles, as well as Set attempting to rape Horus, and the endlessly hysterical “tainted lettuce” incident (Budge, 1969). Horus had to be hidden from Set as a child because he was not nearly powerful enough to challenge Set. He loses many times before finally becoming victorious over Set. As touched upon, Horus the Child is a manifestation of Osiris himself, Osiris reborn almost, a lesser Form. Horus was the power of the Pharaoh (same as the Elder), Osiris on Earth. Again we see an obvious precursor to Christianity, without all the utter bullshit of trying to directly compare Christ to Horus. Horus had to actively fight back against the chaos of Set, actively attempt to uphold Ma’at, same as the pharaoh. This puts Horus the Child as the center of the universal struggle between order and chaos. It’s interesting to note that later gnostic sects held the concept of Horos, “the limit”, which was the division between the Upper and Fallen Aeons. As the sun, Horus also represents the entity between the world of humans and the world of the Neteru.

A Brief Word on Apep

The story of Apep and Set holding him back is also important. It goes that after his family disowned him, Set was adopted by Ra. Set would ride on the sun boat of Ra, and at night he would have to fight back the serpent Apep. It was thought that every night Apep would try to stop the sun in its course by hypnotizing it was a stare. When facing Apep, all the Neteru in the boat would faint, except Set, who pushed the snake back. Apep can be seen to represent absolute chaos, non-existence, delusion, and so forth. It seems that Set was the only Neter not swayed by Apep, likely because Set was understood to be Dark and Chaotic as well. It has been theorized that Apep was understood as a more eldritch form of Set, almost a kind of dark Gnosticism except Set is the actual good guy. Either way, Set was absolutely necessary again, which correlates to his resurgence in the second intermediate period and new kingdom (Te Velde, 1967; Webb, 2011).

Consorts

Finally there is the question of consorts, as Egyptian Neteru are always paired with a female aspect (Budge, 1969; Te Velde, 1967). Horus is difficult, as he is commonly considered either a child of Osiris and Isis, or the fifth sibling of the Ennead that did not have a consort. This is in keeping with the Osirian mythos though. We can see either Isis or Hathor as the consort of Horus, though it can also be argued that these two Neteru are inherently the same. They represent the earth, material pleasure, drunkness and celebration, the harvest and agriculture, domestication, nurturing motherhood and the wrath of an angry parent. This is the classic fertility goddess, associated with Life in line with Horus.

Many sources recognize Taweret as the wife or concubine of Set (Morgan, 2005; Gordon, 2001; Wilkinson, 2003; Ancient Egypt Online, n.d.; Seawright, n.d.). Te Velde (1967) suggests that the Sa symbol, associated with Taweret, is grammatically related to the Sha animal, the dog form of Set. This would be in keeping with the wordplay used in early Egyptian language. During the early times of the language, word-play and puns were one of the main ways in which Egypt-created their language. In many instances it was seen that Taweret was responsible for keeping Set separated from the Gods in the Northern skies, whether to “retain his evil” or, earlier on, literally to be the Separation between Set in the Gods (Morgan, 2005; Seawright, n.d.; Ancient Egypt Online, n.d.). Set’s name itself, in early Egypt, was often a single symbol representing “Separator” or “Isolator” (Te Velde, 1967). Another way she was connected with Set was that they were both related to the northern circumpolar stars (Te Velde, 1967; Aquino, 2014; Levenda, 2008; Webb, 2011; Flowers, 2012). Taweret was seen as the constellation Draco, which may have been envisioned as much larger to the Egyptians (Morgan, 2005; Gordon, 2001; Ancient Egypt Online, n.d.; Seawright, n.d.). It is possible that she was seen as a mother to the gods. Ursa Minor was seen as Sobek riding on Taweret’s back in some situations, or part of Taweret herself (Gordon, 2001; Ancient Egypt Online, n.d.; Seawright, n.d.). However, in the Dendera zodiac, Ursa Minor is seen as the Jackle of Set (Gordon, 2001).

References

Aquino, M., PhD. (2015). MindStar. United States, 2015: CreateSpace Independent Publishing   Pr.

Aquino, M. (2014). The Temple of Set I. United States: CreateSpace Independent Publishing   Platform. 

Budge, E. W. (1898). The Chapters of Coming Forth By Day. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,   Trubner &.

Budge, E. W. (1969). The Gods of the Egyptians. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Clark, R. (2000). The Sacred Tradition in Ancient Egypt. Woodbury, MN: Llewellyn Publications.

Flowers, S., PhD. (2012). Lord of the Left Hand Path: Forbidden Practices and Spiritual Heresies.   Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.

Grimal, N. (1994). A History of Ancient Egypt. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Levenda, P. (2013). The Dark Lord: H.P. Lovecraft, Kenneth Grant, and the Typhonian Tradition   in Magic. Lakeworth, FL: Ibis Press.

Levenda, P. (2008). Stairway to Heaven: Chinese Alchemists, Jewish Kabbalists, and the Art of   Spiritual Transformation. United Kingdom: Bllomsbury Academic.

Mertz, B. (2008). Red Land Black Land: Daily Life in Ancient Egypt. New York, NY:   HarperCollins   Publisher.

Morgan, M. (2005). The Bull of Ombos: Seth and Egyptian Magick II. Oxford, UK: Mandrake of   Oxford.

The Pyramid Texts Online. (n.d.). Retrieved September 06, 2016, from pyramidtextsonline.com
Rielly, C. A. (2011). Taweret: An Untraditional Egyptian Goddess. Retrieved February 8, 2017,   from https://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/556/taweret-an-untraditional-egyptian   goddess

Seawright, C. (n.d.). Taweret, Goddess Demoness of Birth, Rebirth, and the Northern Sky.   Retrieved February 8, 2017, from   http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/taweret.html

Taweret. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2017, from   http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/taweret.html

Te Velde, H. (1967). Seth, God of Confusion. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishing.

Webb, D. (2011). Seven Faces of Darkness. Lodestar.

April 22, 2017, 07:13:01 am
1
Re: Music thread The Cryo Chamber label produces fantastic dark ambient music. Especially great for meditation, ritual, or background music.

https://m.youtube.com/user/cryochamberlabel

April 22, 2017, 06:05:35 pm
1
Re: The Book of Coming Forth by Night I've found my relationship with Set to generally be one of a very friendly student or mentor. It's not that Set does things for us, but when I'm struggling in life and my thoughts fall to Set, I can usually feel the encouragement, picture a type of smirk on his face like he knows I'll figure it out. I never felt like Webb, for example, was right when he said one interacts with Set maybe once in or twice in your life, for me it seems to be present daily.
April 24, 2017, 07:15:58 pm
2
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
The Theory of Forms makes a lot of sense to me now. For example, let's say that our force of consciousness stems from an undefined source and radiates outward. Therefore, it is constantly being replaced by new energy. Even though the material energy is not the same, the "force" is consistently the same by virtue of character being the same. That is sort of where the term "essence" comes in. The essence is the nature seperated from the material.

I think that Set does fit as a personification of the giver of the Black Flame, however, I believe that this applies to many other gods, especially Odin, as well as other proto-Satanic gods such as Ea. I use Odin as the official name, however, "Satan" and "Set" can be used as titles in alternate contexts, e.g a dedication ritual.

I agree that Set is just one of many names for this Form of Consciousness. Odin is one of the more interesting ones imo, if only because the connection is so mysterious to me!

April 25, 2017, 10:30:54 pm
2
Re: Order of the Serpent introductory statement For those interested, the O.S. originally listed the characteristic of "antinomianism" in the intro. I cannot speak for others, but I've never liked this word. It's generally associated with taboo practices, but I learned it's actually a Christianity-specific term. I disliked it before, but really am against it now. I don't think the WLHP needs to be so worried with taboos as to actively violate them, leave that worry for RHPs and the Eastern Left. Nor does one need to disagree with values simply due to culture popularity. "Do not kill" is a perfect example. I am extremely glad to see the term gone and hope to see it fall out of use with the WLHP in time!
April 29, 2017, 04:30:41 am
2
Ritual With the copper which comes forth from Set, the Adze which opens the mouth of the gods, Set opens my mouth, therewith Set may go with me, and he himself may speak before the Great Ennead in the house of the Prince in Heliopolis.
 
I take the finger of Set, which causes the white eye of Horus to see. Oh eye, cause the two lands to bow before me as they bow before Horus. Cause the two lands to fear me as they fear Set.
 
Osiris, you do not gain power over Set, your son does not gain power over him. Horus, you do not gain power over Set, your father does not gain power over him. You, Set, perish not, your Ka perishes not, for you yourself are a Ka.
 
I have come to you, Nephthys, I have come to you in the boat of evening. Set and Nephthys, hasten, announce to the gods of Egypt and their spirits: ‘Xepera maSet comes as an imperishable spirit, if he wills you to live you will live, if he wills you to die you will die. Xepera maSet comes as an imperishable spirit, masked to the neck like Anubis, chief of the western highland, that he may count your hearts, that he may be powerful over the best of hearts.
 
“We see a new thing,” say the primordial gods. “Oh Ennead, a Horus is in the rays of the sun. The lords of form serve him, the two entire Enneads serve him, and he sits in the space of the All-Lord. Xepera maSet is led along the ways of Khepri. He is on his own, the eldest of the gods. Oh gods of the south, north, east, and west, respect him, fear him.”
 
I ascend to heaven on the Sha, which was at the separation. Heaven speaks, the earth quakes on account of your fear, Osiris, when I ascend.
 
I will not be resisted at any place where I go, I will not be hindered at any place where I desire to be. My step is great, that I may traverse the sky. I am not seized by the earth gods, I am not rejected by the planets. Let the two doors of heaven open for me so I may go through them like Horus and Anubis.
 
Be gone those who Osiris guards. Let not Osiris come in his evil coming, do not open your arms for him. Let him be gone at once, let him be gone. Let not Horus (the younger) come in this, his evil coming (with Osiris), do not open your arms for him, let him go to the other gods.
 
Anubis has commanded me to come as a star, as the god of the morning star, that I may pass through the regions of Horus and Set.
 
Khepri, hear it, this word “Xeper”, which is spoken to you by me. Let your heart be glad for me, for I am a great one, the son of a great one. I am with you, take me with you. I have escaped the day of my death like Set escaped the day of his death – by ploughing the earth. Greatings to Khepri, who created himself. Khepri is high in his name of “Ka”. Khepri comes into being in his name of Khepri. Like the name of Set, so too may my name endure!

 

April 30, 2017, 05:53:07 pm
3
Re: "I created the material universe so I could define myself." - Prince of Darkness Generally when I say uppercase G, single God I'm talking about Natural Law, or more fundamentally with Horus the Elder, the Form of Order. TWE easily fits this Form of Order, just without ever resorting to dualism. Set himself must be part of TWE, the Form or Order, for all else is chaos, Apep, nonexistence. The article even states that the foundational TWE is not a god of higher consciousness and will, but experience at its absolute simplest.

What I have been wondering is why he does not allow "that which it is to be like X" to everything. To elaborate, there likely is something it is like to be a thermostat or neuron, that we cannot imagine or experience it changes nothing imo. If we mean experience at the basic level, this would include non-conscious experience. If I push my table with my foot across the floor, there is something it is like to be that table, the floor, the foot, even the particles that make them, and TWE underneath. In fact this fits quite well with LHP-Platonism.

April 30, 2017, 11:06:56 pm
1
Re: "I created the material universe so I could define myself." - Prince of Darkness I've always been of the impression that the universe and nature came to be out of sheer possibility. In an infinite chaos of infinite probability, eventually "nature" would form within it. If the chaos is outside time, this would literally be immediate, the two would always exist. I like how the Diabolicon illustrates it:

"And after uncounted ages of this great ferment, a force fused to focus that became God, and this force presumed to effect not the creation of substance and energy - for these transcended this God - but the conformation of all the Universe to a single and supreme order. And not yet is this order absolute, though oft it may have been supposed thus by man in his innocence."

But like we were discussing, perhaps every single thing experiences in its own way, which means the mere existence of anything entails a field of experience, participated in TWE. We simply have a more advanced form of experience. In this sense, Nature/God/TWE exists simply because of necessity, for if something exists TWE exists, and within primordial chaos inevitably something will come to exist.

May 01, 2017, 12:05:30 am
1
Re: "I created the material universe so I could define myself." - Prince of Darkness I'm going to try and illustrate a small cosmology here.

In the beginning, or more appropriately before the beginning, there was primordial chaos - a timeless ocean of seething, infinite potential. Constantly creating potentials with an infinite amount of time, inevitably there would come to be some sort of Order withing the chaos. I don't agree with idea that matter and whatever else exists are separate from each other, they are two sides of the same coin and just as inseparable. This Order was both matter and "that which experiences," for matter interacts with itself naturally, causing "excitations" within it. Thus both Matter and TWE, the physical and the Form, exist for all time. Because of the timeless nature of chaos, we can say that, in our understanding, this world of Matter and Form has always existed, in keeping with modern physics. Further, you can see this chaos in "maps" of the Big Bang, under such esoteric terms as "quantum fluctuations." 

Then, evolution. We understand it pretty well from the Big Bang until the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. All Form/Experience was mindless, meaningless, all things simply "were" and simply "happened." Yet at some point, to our knowledge first around 20,000 - 10,000 years ago, something changed. Through unknown means, matter sparked to create inner experience, a great mystery known as the Hard Problem of Consciousness. And when X comes to exist, the Form of X comes to exist, thus the birth of Set, the First in Consciousness, a disruption to the natural order. I think perhaps Setamontet is correct, that even Set does not understand this "hard problem." Yet as a Form, Set exists outside of time and space, and so the entirety of its conscious evolution would be immediate. It was then that consciousness insanely accelerated in human beings, and continues to this day. 

May 01, 2017, 10:53:10 pm
1
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
Argument for Set short version
 
This is an updated, simplified, and clarified version of my Argument for Set. It is not a full elaboration. I have also taken the liberty of providing the simplest, most straight forward way I can imagine to refute each and every premise in itself. Surely if one cannot come up with a more solid argument or evidence, they can refute this argument based on these simple refutation possibilities provided.
 
                Premise 1: The Self is Axiomatic

This is quite simple in my opinion. Our own self-existence is the only thing we can be certain of, not even our experiences or thoughts, but the mere fact that “I exist” for each self-conscious individual. It is an axiom because there is no way to engage in reasoning without it, nor a way to attempt to deny its existence. The easiest, most straight-forward way to refute Premise 1 is to successfully argue or empirically show “I don’t exist” to be true without ever relying on “I exist” being true.
 
               Premise 2: The Objective, Material Universe Exists in Some Sense

Also rather simply, there is an external world of matter which we seem to consistently perceive. Were there not, science would not have any success, for it is rooted in the idea that there are objective truths and falsehood. This can be refuted simply by showing that there is not a consistent, external world. Have to sane people with 20/20 vision look at the same tree and see separate objects, or simply show that simple scientific knowledge, such as the maximum velocity of a falling object, is not consistent.

                Premise 3: The Axiomatic, Self-Aware Consciousness and the Objective, Material Universe are Non-Identical.

                This is known as “the Hard Problem of Consciousness,” more specifically the problem of Property Dualism (or Emergent Dualism). As we said in Premise 1, the Self-Conscious Self cannot be denied in a logical position, which leaves any type of Material Monism at a severe loss, as it must reduce conscious experience to the physical. Yet as we said in Premise 2, the external world of matter cannot be denied either. It can be questioned, such as by idealism or solipsism, and yet continues to remain consistent and have a recognizable impact on us. If Monism cannot answer the question, and substance dualism seems hopelessly lost, what best explains this situation? Again, the individual only needs to reject premise 1 or 2 successfully. Besides this, one may simply show that there is a misunderstanding in property dualism.

                Premise 4: A Modified Theory of Forms is the Best Explanation of the World

Let me try to keep this explanation simple, as things quickly become complicated. “Pointedness,” the characteristic of “having a point (as in physical point),” is the perfect example of a simple Form. Your coffee table, a nearby writing utensil, your television and computer, and many other things likely contain the characteristic of “having one or more physical points.” Yet the pointed objects are not, themselves, pointedness, which would violate the Law of Identity, but rather both share in the same characteristic of pointedness. Pointedness being something immaterial that you can never actually show in a physical sense other than through different manifestations of the characteristic. This allows the world of matter and of internal existence from 1 and 2 to be connected yet separate, solving the problem of Premise 3. Of course Forms are simple to disprove, just show “pointedness” to itself be physical, or that characteristics are not free of the mind.

                Premise 5: Forms and Consciousness

The Theory of Forms tells us that for any one thing which exists, a Form of it exists, as well as Forms to explain them. In other words, if X exists the Form of X exists. Self-Aware onsciousness obviously exists (Premise 1), and so a Form of such consciousness must obviously exist (Premise 4). Rejecting premise 4 rejects premise 5.

                Premise 6: The Form of Higher Consciousness and “God”

Unlike pointedness, which is a simple and lone characteristic, consciousness, especially of this kind, has many characteristics to it. In the sense of the higher, isolate consciousness human beings have, characteristics include self-awareness, rationality, emotion, desire, biases, etc. and so on. This means that any being with Higher Consciousness partakes in these characteristics, as do any Forms lower down the hierarchy, such as “desire” and “emotion.” Yet Forms themselves are immaterial (Premise 4), as well as eternal, timeless, etc. and so on. These characteristics are identical to those of many gods from polytheistic traditions. It is immaterial and eternal, but conscious, aware, desirous, and so forth. Through this realization we can see that this Form of Higher Consciousness is identical to a traditional, polytheistic view of gods. To refute this one only needs to explain why the characteristics of the Form do not match with the gods of paganism and polytheism.

                Premise 7: Set

Simply put, the traditional Egyptian god Set is the closest match to this Form of Higher Consciousness in human history, from its physical form to its mythological positions. This premise is fully elaborated upon in my “Mysteries of Horus and Set,” and “Setian Pyramid Texts.” If there is issue, simply a more appropriate replacement, but otherwise refuting 6 refutes 7. 

May 02, 2017, 10:18:01 pm
2