Author Topic: V.K. Jehannum on Set  (Read 359 times)

Ave Lucifugus

  • Guest
V.K. Jehannum on Set
« on: July 09, 2018, 05:01:10 pm »
Since some of you have expressed a liking for V.K.'s methods and writings, I must ask you what your thoughts are on this video? Really curious about a Setian's opinion on this.



Agree/disagree? Why?

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1722
  • Total likes: 1896
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2018, 05:16:56 pm »
Summary?

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Liu

Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2018, 05:25:17 pm »
Almost forgot about that one... that was one of those where I was like "yeah, whatever you say...".
Seemed a bit outlandish to me.

@Xepera maSet It's just 3 minutes. Or no possibility to watch it atm?
He basically says that Set and Apep merged a while ago and due to that merge they both died in some way and now exist outside of this world and the entities that humans now to work with when believing to be working with e.g. Set are just other entities acting on their behalf.

Ave Lucifugus

  • Guest
Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2018, 05:57:25 pm »
Seemed outlandish to me at first, too. But, who knows, it might be true. It would kinda explain why the Set that's revealed himself to Aquino and other Setians is not the same as the Set of old.

I don't work with Set so I remain agnostic on the matter.

Edit: I should point out that when I called on Set before in the past because I was curious, I found him to be rather enigmatic and complex. Couldn't describe him adequately. Take that as you will.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2018, 06:07:29 pm by Frater Gaster »

Liu

Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2018, 07:17:15 pm »
Seemed outlandish to me at first, too. But, who knows, it might be true. It would kinda explain why the Set that's revealed himself to Aquino and other Setians is not the same as the Set of old.

I don't work with Set so I remain agnostic on the matter.

Edit: I should point out that when I called on Set before in the past because I was curious, I found him to be rather enigmatic and complex. Couldn't describe him adequately. Take that as you will.
Haven't formally called upon Set thus far (except for when using his name as an alternative name for Satan, mainly when using other people's prayers). But I wouldn't be surprised when the Set of contemporary Setians is a different one from that of Ancient Egypt.
There are some situations in which I kinda feel what I would guess might be a central aspect of the essence of Set, and those would mainly be those rather painful situations when I have to face my weaknesses and work on them in order to grow and continue on my path and, even though that doesn't make it that much more pleasant, I find some kind of inner strength to motivate me.
That seems quite related to Setian philosophy but I doubt it's very related to the original Set.

V.K. Jehannum

Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2018, 02:23:18 pm »
Stumbled across this while I was Googling my own name. In my opinion, persons wanting to know whether or not what I said there was correct only have one legitimate option: channeling.

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1722
  • Total likes: 1896
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2018, 02:34:55 pm »
Welcome!

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1722
  • Total likes: 1896
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2018, 02:35:27 pm »
Almost forgot about that one... that was one of those where I was like "yeah, whatever you say...".
Seemed a bit outlandish to me.

@Xepera maSet It's just 3 minutes. Or no possibility to watch it atm?
He basically says that Set and Apep merged a while ago and due to that merge they both died in some way and now exist outside of this world and the entities that humans now to work with when believing to be working with e.g. Set are just other entities acting on their behalf.

I don't know why but I don't learn from videos. Even in online college I just turned on captions and read.

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Liu

Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2018, 04:58:28 pm »
Stumbled across this while I was Googling my own name. In my opinion, persons wanting to know whether or not what I said there was correct only have one legitimate option: channeling.
Welcome! It's an honour to have you here!
Quite agree with you on that point - just not all of us are as proficient in that.

Etu Malku

Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2018, 12:38:22 am »
I always get a kick out of VK! Although, I haven't heard the theory of Apep/Apophis and Set as being one and the same. From my knowledge, Set was a defender of Ra and enemy of Apep. But hey . . . we're making this up as we go along!
IAMTHATIAMNOT

crossfire

Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2018, 03:15:47 pm »
I have a different take on Set and Apep, which parallels the transforming anger article posted here.

Set is anger turning inward to clear out the boiling eddies of the mind (Apep.)  So yeah, in this respect, both will transform and merge within your own individual subjective mind and become something else.

Of course, your mileage may vary.
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

Etu Malku

Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2018, 11:11:33 pm »
Warning! Looong . . .

The general impression of Set as "Osiris' evil brother" is the result of the influence of Plutarch's Moralia, which represented the [local, latter-day] Osiris/Isis/Horus cult as characteristic of Egyptian religion generally. This was not the case; various areas (Nomes) of Egypt had their own triads of neteru.

No records of the ancient Priesthood of Set survived first the Osirian persecution and later the more general vandalism of the Christian/Islamic eras. We know of it only by its reflection, both in the character of Set as he was portrayed symbolically and mythologically and in the nature of Egyptian priesthoods in general.

Together with the Priesthood of Horus [the Elder], that of Set was the oldest of the Egyptian priesthoods. If we date it to the earliest predynastic images of Set found by archæologists, we can establish an origin of at least 3200 BCE. Working with the Egyptians’ own astronomically-based records (#2F), we may approximate 5000 BCE. If we are to assume the final eclipse of the Priesthood at the end of the XIX-XX [Setian] Dynasties ca. 1085 BCE, we are looking at an institution which existed at least two thousand and possibly as many as four thousand years. “In the early dynasties,” observes Budge:

Originally Posted By: Wallis Budge, The Book of the Dead   
Set was a beneficent god, and one whose favor was sought after by the living and by the dead, and so late as the XIX Dynasty kings delighted to call themselves “Beloved of Set”. After the cult of Osiris was firmly established and this god was the “great god” of all Egypt, it became the fashion to regard Set as the origin of all evil, and his statues and images were so effectively destroyed that only a few which have escaped by accident have come down to us.

In The Dawn of Astronomy Sir Norman Lockyer suggests that “‘Set’ seems to have been a generic name applied to the northern (circumpolar) constellations, perhaps because Set = darkness, and these stars, being always visible in the night, may have in time typified it. Since the northern constellations were symbolized by the name of Set, the god of darkness, we should take Set-Horus to mean that the stars in the Dragon (Draco) were rising at sunrise.” To support his theory, Lockyer cites the following inscription from royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings:

Quote:
The constellation of the Thigh appears at the late rising. When this constellation is in the middle of the heavens, having come to the south where [the constellation Orion] lies, the other stars are proceeding to the western horizon. Regarding the Thigh: It is the Thigh of Set; while it is seen in the northern heavens, there is a band [constellation] to the two in the shape of a great bronze chain.

Lockyer concludes that the constellation Draco, and in particular the star at its head (Gamma Draconis), represented Set. If indeed a single star were so regarded, it was probably Alpha Draconis (or Thuban), the Polar Star at the beginning of the Egyptian civilization. Due to the Precession of the Equinoxes, Alpha Draconis will return to the celestial pole at approximately 24000 CE.

Center of the original Priesthood of Set was PaMat-et, capital of the ancient Egyptian XIX Uab Nome. It was called Oxyrhynchus by the Greeks. It is located in Upper Egypt at Latitude 28.5N, Longitude 30.8E. Other cities which were centers of the Setian Priesthood were Ombos at 24.5N, 32.9E and Tanis at 31N, 31.9E in Lower Egypt.

As a neter of darkness and night, Set was the complement to Horus (Hor - neter of the Sun and daylight) in predynastic times. So integral was this relationship that the heads of the two neteru were frequently shown on a single body (hieroglyphic name Hrwyfy “He with the Two Faces”). With regard to the annual cycle, Horus was thought to govern the waxing of the Sun from the South Solstice, while Set governed the waning of the Sun from the North Solstice.

Again according to conventional archæology, it was in the pre-dynastic Gerzean period (commencing about 3600 BCE) that the first communities of the future Egyptian nation came into existence. The great war of unification commenced in approximately 3400 BCE. After more than two centuries of intermittent conflict between Upper and Lower Egypt, the land was finally united under Menes (or Narmer), the first pharaoh of the I Dynasty.

Together the two primeval neteru - Horus and Set - then symbolized the unity and wholeness of the Egyptian nation: Horus as the neter of the north (Lower Egypt) and Set as the neter of the south (Upper Egypt). This union was represented on monuments by the ritual gesture of samtaui, showing Horus and Set binding the heraldic plants of Upper and Lower Egypt around the stem of an AnX, symbol of divine life.

The roles of Horus and Set as the original state neteru of Egypt were further emphasized by the pharaohs’ famous Double Crown (SeXet), being a composite of the Red Crown of Horus (Teser) and the White Crown of Set (Het/“Great One of Spells”). And the Tcham sceptre, with the head and forked tail of Set, became a symbol of power and authority for neteru and pharaohs alike.

Horus was later adopted into the Osirian mythos as the “son of Osiris and Isis”. Egyptologists generally distinguish the original and the corruption by the terms “Horus the Elder” and “Horus the Younger” respectively. HarWer is a form of Horus the Elder combined with Wer (“The Great God”), a transcendent neter of light. The Sun and the Moon were said to be the right and left eyes of HarWer, known as the Udjat (“Uræus” in Greek). At the same time the Udjat was also considered to partake of the essence of Set. Mounted both on the SeXet and on other national crowns and headgear, the Udjat became another symbol of the pharaoh.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino
IAMTHATIAMNOT

Onyx

Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2018, 12:53:41 am »
Quote from: crossfire
Set is anger turning inward to clear out the boiling eddies of the mind...

I see the relationship between Set/Apep as symbolic of the sovereignty of controlled mindfulness over uncontrolled mindlessness. Anger can certainly be an important aspect of that, as it tends to react to chaotic events swiftly and with precision. Like you said in your essay, "anger is a quick and strong emotion". The glyph for Set was indeed included in words related to rage, violence, war, etc. (Seth, God of Confusion p.22-23).

I'm not following V.K.'s thoughts very well here, but the Egyptian religion was rich in symbolism and people use it different ways.



Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1722
  • Total likes: 1896
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2018, 12:54:11 am »
Hail @Etu Malku ! I feel like I haven't seen much of that into before, especially directly tying Set to Gamma Draconis and all the stars. This will help strengthen my work when I eventually do the second edition of my book.

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1722
  • Total likes: 1896
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: V.K. Jehannum on Set
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2018, 12:57:45 am »
I'll throw in my cent. To me Set is consciousness, most specifically higher and isolate consciousness. Horus is the "unconsciousness", all the laws and order we can't control and that take no will. Apep is the pre-Set/Horus primordial Chaos. Set/Horus (or Hrwy.fy) is the inevitable outcome of infinite potential with infinite time. I like what the Diabolicon says:

"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."

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460