The Franklin Files

Omega · Guru

RE: The Curse II

Omega · Guru

THE INHERENT DIFFICULTY OF STUDYING
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN RELIGION

Throughout its 4,000 odd year old history there is no systematic
account of the doctrines used. Different men living at different times
do not think alike; and no college of priests had formulated a system of beliefs that was received by all clergy and laity alike. 42 nomes;
42 religions in 4,000 years! Changes were extent, differences, even in the same periods, were great. But all had one thing in common, Organic Totality.

Organic Totality: the physical environment, human organizations, conscience, language and ultimate goals, all make up Egypt's totality. Egypt did not have a central dogma or sacred book. But the one thing that prevented them from losing their individuality and from coa-
lescing into a common unit is the belief in more than one set of gods.
The Egyptian religions were both personal and nationalistic. It was
personal to each individual or family; private, interwoven with a
sense of personal right and wrong, with a personal shrine or "niche"
in every house to their personal gods/desses. It was nationalistic
because usually the place of the national seat of government deter-
mined, for the most part, the overall thought of the period, the
morality of the period. The Egyptian religion offers a variety of
paths to the ultimate source by individual contact and tailoring
information and guidance according to an individual's needs and level of development.

Three aspects of the Egyptian religion and culture.

1. Polytheism; all gods and goddesses are emanations or forces from one source (although in each state, the one source may have a dif-
ferent name).
2. Actualization of the Individual; the development of the potential
of the individual was important to the Egyptian colleges.
3. Direct communication/relationship of an individual's surroundings.

The kings of Egypt had from three to five "great names" and Lee
mentioned only one, the Horus name. There is also the "nebti" name.
This name is from the Two Ladies, Nekhebet and Uatchet, and Pharaoh becomes the force uniting the dual monarchy. This name goes back to

Omega · Guru

the 1st dynasty and is based on the two capitals of pre-dynastic
Egypt, Neken and Buto, seats of the two goddesses. The third name is the "bee" name. "He who belongs to the sedge plant and the bee," the "nesu-list" name, symbolizing the union of Upper and Lower Egypt.
Predynastic: According to Manetho, a race of people came into Egypt and some became the founders and rulers of This and Memphis. The
system of solar theology arrived in Lower Egypt (Delta) as early as
5,000 bce in the form of the "Shensu Heru" or Followers of Horus. They made their way to upper Egypt before the 1st dynasty. In predynastic times there were two distinct kingdoms, Upper and Lower Egypt, with their capitals at Neken (slightly north of Thebes) and Buto (in the
Delta). We have names of at least 12 kings of these two areas, al-
though the Book of Sothis lists 86 kings, and the "Old Chronicles"
lists 84.

There are several approaches taken by metaphysically minded
people of today about ancient Egypt. There are those who see only what Edgar Cayce or something like Urantia has to say about Egypt, and
don't take the time to discover Egypt for themselves, or to see if
what they learned was actually true. There are those who have worked beyond Cayce, and find a "pull" towards Egypt and read many books about the subject. Unfortunately, Budge, the most predominant writer, gives an unrealistic view of ancient Egypt, and many things are not
mentioned, such as personal worship, initiations, changes of con-
sciousness; therefore the reader is forced to rely on another source,
who may not know anything at all about Egypt, but a lot about meta physics and give you bum information. Elizabeth Haitch's (?) book,
"Initiation," supposedly an Egyptian initiation, bears no relation to
an actual Egyptian initiation and should be treated as fantasy. Then
there are those in metaphysics that like to practice the ancient
religions. Their approach is usually through another tradition, i.e.
Golden Dawn, or Wicca. Both of these traditions (Wicca having many traditions and only some incorporate Egyptian into them) do not draw upon real Egyptian traditions. The Golden Dawn uses Greco-Roman Egyptian Tradition, acknowledged by Egyptologists as the period when most of the Egyptian traditions have been radically changed by outside
influences, much already lost, and even hieroglyphic writing being
incomprehensible. The Wicca traditions take god/desses wholesale, give them new attributes, new powers that they never had, have the rituals in English, etc.

No one studies the Egyptian traditions from the texts, temples,
or tombs in order to find out how it works. Except me. Perhaps that is because I believe in finding out about a tradition by getting it from
the original sources. And a major part of the problem is that although there are a lot of books, they are for the most part, too general. To
find out what the Egyptians practiced, how, why, when and by whom
requires years of searching obscure journals, papers, translations of
texts, excavation reports (which have illustrations, translations of
what was excavated) of tombs, houses, temples, and how many people have the time, money, experience to do that? Almost no one. So every- one else makes it up or speculates about it. I am going to try to make up for this loss by publishing a series of books on the ancient Egyp-
tian personal worship, and the Temple Priesthood. What was taught, how was it taught, who did they teach it to, who were the teachers, how

Omega · Guru

were they qualified, where was it taught, what differences are there
between personal worship at home and temple worship, etc.?

----------

There was a note about religions borrowing elements from others
and that it happened for millennia. Such is definitely not the case.
Granted it is easy to find a few that did, Christianity, Islam, Roman.
And granted it is easy to find more that borrowed SOME of its trad-
ition, but let's look at a couple of those.

There is no evidence that the Ancient Egyptian religion came out
from somewhere else. From pre-dynastic to the Middle Kingdom there were only one or two examples where borrowing took place, but in each and every case, they adopted THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. In fact in almost every case of a pagan religion part of another system, they almost
invariably adopted the priesthood with it, or had the priesthood teach them, Or made it a part but separate from the main religion. This is
totally different from today's pagans. Instead of being taught from
the priesthood of the other religion or adopting the entire priest-
hood, they take bits and snatches that they don't understand and adopt it.

Now it is agreed by both Egyptologists, The Church of the Eternal
Source (see Drawing Down the Moon), and many Hermeticists that in the Late Period of ancient Egypt, the priesthood not only started forget-
ting the important esoteric side of their own religion, but started
adopting others bits and pieces, without the total integration that
they practiced earlier. It resulted in a almost total breakdown of
usefulness in practicing magic, mumbling now meaningless phrases, and effectiveness in their magic and rituals.

One can count numberless examples of just how much one can be effective when you only know a small part of the whole (kind of like
driving a car for the first time when the only thing you know about is
the trunk).

Also in ancient Egyptian, Hindu, Buddhism, and many American
Indian religions (and paganism in the 1950-1970's) there was a belief that a symbol, if believed in by a large number of people over a large span of time, is far more effective than a symbol that is used by a
small group over a short period of time. Does it not hold true that a
magical object is imbued with more magic every time it is used?

Thus, then how effective can a system be if it is 20-30 years old,
practiced by 500 people, using symbols that are either brand new or
misunderstood? (Like using a red pentagram for bring forth the earth element; how less effective is it as opposed to a green one which has been used by millions of people for thousands of years?)

Occult philosophy by these groups and many others maintain that the more powerful an object is based on the formula: # of people using it + # of years in use + the ability of the individual to use it + the
correctness in its use. The astral plane is exclusively made up by

Omega · Guru

just this principle, and it's this plane where much of the magic is
done.

The effectiveness of the individual to practice his magic or
religion is also directly proportional to the abilities and effective-
ness of his/her teacher, and the degree of success in achieving the
goals in his/her training.

FROM MARK REYBURN On borrowing, syncretism is and was
common among many religions, including Egyptians, as you
note. It tends to occur most frequently in cultures with
regular contact with different practices. One of the Sun
Dances, I think it's the Cherokee, is supposed to be syn-
cretic. Who they got it from escapes me, my anthro classes
are practically history themselves by now! Selective borrow-
ings are, as you note, tricky things. But, we would be
poorer without it. And ceremonial magic aside, symbol use is
more free-form than most of us would prefer. Not quite,
words mean what I want them to mean, but symbols are much
more personal than the "Official" correspondences. The
"well-worn path" of symbol meaning is certainly helpful IN
SOME TRADITIONS, but is completely irrelevant to someone who
is using symbols on a personal level. Although less potent
magickally, religiously personal symbolism is much more
potent than time-worn symbols. Besides, how else do new
religions develop symbolism?

FROM DOMI O'BRIEN In ADF ritual we specifically note that
the more-- and the more of us-- that call upon the old gods
the more they respond to our need-- one is reminded of "the
old gods only sleep, you know, although betrayed and slan-
dered; they guarded us from every woe, and blessed each crop
and fine herd..." and, oddly enough, Tinker Bell-- if you
believe in fairies-- read DDW-- we focus belief, and will...

FROM GARY OHLEMILLER This is an interesting dichotomy I
haven't heard much about before. One group seems to prefer
the Bonewits/Parapsychological approach which holds that the
power of a symbol comes from the strength of association it
holds in the individual's unconscious. Mr. Poe seems to
advocate a Jungian approach in which the archetype exists
"objectively" and is waiting there to be used. Does anyone
out there have enough practical experience to tell us which
is more efficacious? I sure don't.

FROM MICHAEL POE In reference to what is more (?) effec-
tive or powerful, actually both together would be the most
powerful of all.
My little experience, such as it is, has been working in the
area for 20 years, bring apprenticed to an Havasupi shaman,
personal knowledge from four other systems, watching and
working with 3 other shamans, and personal tours to sacred