posted
hi do anyone know what magical practises were meant to take part in egypt, appolonius of tyana said hindu and egyptian magic was the same apart from the presentation of it, can anyone fill me in
Posts: 87 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient Egyptians did not look at magic in the same sense that modern European or American society looked at it. To the ancient Egyptians it was called Heka which was symbolic of the creation of the first time to the ancient Egyptians. The practiconer was mostly confined to the priesthood and called a hry heb. This was not to be equated with the commoners in everyday soceity and strictly amungst the priesthood.
"The techniques of magic, its practitioners, and the written texts are all well reviewed. For those interested in the coexistence of rationality and irrationality as it operated in ancient Egypt with respect to science and magic, this work is a splendid introduction."
?Choice
"Egypt was the mother of magicians."
?Clement of Alexandria
The Egyptians were famous in the ancient world for their knowledge of magic. Religion, medicine, technology, and what we would call magic coexisted without apparent conflict, and it was not unusual for magical and "practical" remedies for illness, for example, to be used side by side. Everyone resorted to magic, from the pharaoh guarding his country with elaborate magical rituals to the expectant mother wearing amulets to safeguard her unborn child.
In this book, Geraldine Pinch examines the connections between myth and magic and the deities?such as the goddess Isis, and the protective lion-demon Bes?who had special magical importance. She discusses the techniques of magic, its practitioners, and the surviving magical texts, as well as the objects that were used in magic: figurines, statues, amulets, and wands. She devotes a chapter to medicine and magic and one to magic and the dead. Finally, Dr. Pinch shows how elements and influences from Egyptian magic survived in or were taken up by later societies, right down to our own century.
posted
Of course, one of the most important and significant aspects of Egyptian magic to have survived into our present day, was the magic performed by the priest during the opening of the mouth, or resurrection of the dead body into a new life in the underworld. Tutankhamun reformed this practise slightly in that the resurrection would not be to the underworld, but actually back into the world of the living as a spirit. This has filtered through religion to this very day and is symbolic in the death and resurrection of Christ, the opening of the mouth being the "word" which is the very name of God. This doctrine, however, is not accepted by Moslems, nor Jews who totally rejected it, but it is however accepted by the gentiles, the Christians of today. Charlie.
Posts: 707 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
The "magic" of the Egyptians was of two kinds: (1) that which was employed for legitimate purposes and with the idea of benefiting either the living or the dead, and (2) that which was made use of in the furtherance of nefarious plots and schemes and was intended to bring calamities upon those against whom it was directed. In the religious texts and works we see how magic is made to be the handmaiden of religion, and how it appears in certain passages side by side with the most exalted spiritual conceptions; and there can be no doubt that the chief object of magical books and ceremonies was to benefit those who had by some means attained sufficient knowledge to make use of them. But the Egyptians were unfortunate enough not to be understood by many of the strangers who found their way into their country, and as a result wrong and exaggerated ideas of their religion were circulated among the surrounding nations, and the magical ceremonies which were performed at their funerals were represented by the ignorant either as silly acts of superstition or as tricks of the "black" art. But whereas the magic of every other nation of the ancient East was directed entirely against the powers of darkness, and was invented in order to frustrate their fell designs by invoking a class of benevolent beings to their aid, the Egyptians aimed being able to command their gods to work for them, and to compel them to appear at their desire. These great results were to be obtained by the use of certain words which, to be efficacious, must be uttered in a proper tone of voice by a duly qualified man; such words might be written upon some substance, papyrus, precious stones, and the like, and worn on the person, when their effect could be transmitted to any distance. As almost every man, woman, and child in Egypt who could afford it wore some such charm or talisman, it is not to be wondered at that the Egyptians were at a very early period regarded as a nation of magicians and sorcerers. Hebrew, and Greek, and Roman writers referred to them as experts in the occult sciences, and as the possessors of powers which could, according to circumstances, be employed to do either good or harm to man.
A popular magic ritual the Egyptians practiced was execration, in which enemies were depicted and symbolically destroyed.
This could range from the Pharaoh depicted smiting his foes, which the Egyptians believe would come true:
The Kushites-Meroites also shared this practice:
The Pharaohs were also known to have sandals with enemies depicted on the soles so that they can "trample" their enemies.
During the conflict with the Romans, the Meroite Queen Aminirenas severed the head of a bronze statue of the Roman emperor Augustus and had it buried under the threshold of a doorway so that she may continue to "trample" her Roman enemy.
Other forms of execration were more simple and involved simply making small figures or 'dolls' of the enemy and crushing, burning, or mutiliating it! Sound familiar??
From the Hebrews we receive, incidentally, it is true, considerable information about the powers of the Egyptian magician. Saint Stephen boasts that the great legislator Moses "was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," and declares that he "was mighty in words and in deeds,"1 and there are numerous features in the life of this remarkable man which shew that he was acquainted with many of the practices of
Egyptian magic. The phrase "mighty in words" probably means that, like the goddess Isis, he was "strong of tongue" and uttered the words of power which he knew with correct pronunciation, and halted not in his speech, and was perfect both in giving the command and in saying the word. The turning of a serpent into what is apparently an inanimate, wooden stick, 1 and the turning of the stick back into a writhing snake, 2 are feats which have been performed in the East from the most ancient period; and the power to control and direct the movements of such venomous reptiles was one of the things of which the Egyptian was most proud, and in which he was most skilful, already in the time when the pyramids were being built. But this was by no means the only proof which Moses gives that he was versed in the magic of the Egyptians, for, like the sage Āba-aner and king Nectanebus, and all the other magicians of Egypt from time immemorial, he and Aaron possessed a wonderful rod 3 by means of which they worked their wonders. At the word of Moses Aaron lifted up his rod and smote the waters and they became blood; he stretched it out
In Egyptian belief, words, especially names, had power. To utter a name or even write a name was to give life or have power over the object. This belief is also common to many African cultures:
African artists almost always remain anonymous because of the power they assign to names, which are considered the essence of the things named. A man may have three names, two of which are secret, and different from the name that is connected to his physical body. The craftsman does not perceive himself as an "artist" worthy of connecting his name to a "creation."
In the philosophy of many West African peoples, the spoken 'word' is equated with life-force. It contains the power that gives life and effectiveness to all things. The 'word' is 'water and seed and blood in one'. It is through the spoken word that humans can create and give life to inanimate objects.{11}
In many West African societies, the act of naming is used to bring 'things' to life. For instance, a new-born child becomes a complete human
"only when the father ... gives him a name and pronounces it. Before this the little body is ... a thing; if it dies, it is not even mourned ... A creature which is sharply distinguished from the animal and has its place in the community of men is produced not by the act of birth, but by the word-seed: it is designated."
For many West African peoples, naming is not a single event, but a continuous activity in which an individual may inherit several layers of names. Among the Hausa of Northern Nigeria and Niger, a 'secret' name is whispered to a 3-or 4-day-old infant in its mother's hut. Then a 'public' name is given at a ceremony at 7 days of age. This name is either from the Koran or the name of an ancestor. An infant will also receive several names from elders and siblings, reflecting events surrounding the birth, or personal traits of the named. Later, grandparents will often give additional names to the growing child in reference to its character and accomplishment. A Hausa adult may also acquire a 'praise name' in reference to occupation; it is usually a critique, positive or negative, of the person's actions."{13} In many parts of Ghana a child also receives a 'secret' name, a 'day' name (stating the day of birth) and several other names. The practice of multiple naming seems to be a pan-West African phenomenon."{14}
The systematic destruction of African cultures by slavery ensured that many facets of these cultures were lost in the U.S.. In fact, the name was one of the first aspects of African culture to be stripped from an African, even before arrival in the New World.{15}Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The above reminds me of the myth about Auset (Isis) learning the secret name of Ra and therefore attaining great power.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
These Fon (Dahomean) artefacts remind me of some practices mentioned above(I am not sure if they were done by cruelty, to celebrate victories or for magical purposes though):
I am wondering if this wall hanging depicting the war with the French wasn't done for magical purposes. If it predated the war it probably was, but if it was created after, it may was done to make a defeat look like a victory.
quote:Originally posted by Pax Dahomensis: These Fon (Dahomean) artefacts remind me of some practices mentioned above(I am not sure if they were done by cruelty, to celebrate victories or for magical purposes though):
It appears so! The legs of the throne being supported on the heads or skulls of enemies represents the king's triumph over his enemies. So the king may ritually sit with his throne on his enemies.
quote:I am wondering if this wall hanging depicting the war with the French wasn't done for magical purposes. If it predated the war it probably was, but if it was created after, it may was done to make a defeat look like a victory.
^That's very funny considering the following information from Tour Egypt
No one was better at this propaganda than Ramesses the Great, who always won his wars and always forced his enemies to grovel at his feet. For example, even though many scholars believe he lost ground with the Battle of Kadesh, he nevertheless had no fewer than ten inscriptions, a longer "poem" and a shorter "bulletin" carved on the walls of five temples, along with accompanying reliefs. These, of course, all depicted Ramesses II victorious, but few of these accounts conform to our modern standards of historic reporting. In fact, some battles depicted by later pharaohs, were actually campaigns of earlier kings whom the current pharaoh wished to emulate, while others depicted kings such as Amenhotep III and his son, Akhenaten smiting enemies when in fact they probably never personally participated in military actions at all.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Magic is defined as "The ART that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the SUPERNATURAL".
Is this an accurate assessment of ANY A.E. practice? If not, why would any of you apply this Eurocentric term to African practices?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Well I don't think "any" Egyptian practice was magical or involved magic. Also, I don't see anything Eurocentric about the term 'magic' as defined by Europeans because that pretty much sums it up. Magic means any power or control over forces natural or supernatural. Practically all societies have some belief in 'magic'. For the Egyptians and many other Africans, anyone is capable of practicing magic if they had the knowledge and power.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ... I don't see anything Eurocentric about the term 'magic' as defined by Europeans because that pretty much sums it up. Magic means any power or control over forces natural or supernatural. Practically all societies have some belief in 'magic'. For the Egyptians and many other Africans, anyone is capable of practicing magic if they had the knowledge and power.
Evergreen Writes:
I differ in opinion. Eurocentrism by definition implies the utilization of European cosmology in reference to non-European cultures. Supernatural is defined as "Of or existing outside the natural world." This linear view is alien to traditional African value systems. Africans recognize the existence of non-visible forces. For example when African spirtual belifs were transfered to the West in the form of Christianity this segregation between the natural and supernatural world manifested itself in the form of a literal interpretation of abstract African beliefs. The unseen power of GOD within the conciousness of man (heaven/hell) became a literal GOD (Man) in heaven. Magic, like many other Eurocentric terms has no corelative within the African world view.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
In a nutshell, the term Magic is a pejoritive as applied to African belief systems. When Africans study the universe it is Magic, ritual, etc. When Europeans do it the outcome is physics, chemistry, etc.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Supernatural is defined as "Of or existing outside the natural world." This linear view is alien to traditional African value systems. Africans recognize the existence of non-visible forces...
In a nutshell, the term Magic is a pejoritive as applied to African belief systems. When Africans study the universe it is Magic, ritual, etc. When Europeans do it the outcome is physics, chemistry, etc.
What do you make of the belief in 'God'?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not untill the conversion to Christianity did the ancient Egyptians use magic in the Western sense. The ancient Egyptians saw such rituals as representing Heka that represented the power of creation. According to what I have read the rituals were primarily conducted amongst the priestly class untill the Greco-Romam period. The priests were known as Hry heb priest.
Also check out The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, Monograph published by the Oriental Institute as Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 54, (Chicago by Robert Ritner
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QUOTE]What do you make of the belief in 'God'?
Evergreen Writes:
What do I make of this belief or what did the A.E.s believe in this regard? Please elaborate.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
and according to scholars like Budge, the being of the "unseen" superior being was understood; and that the powers of this being was manifested in various types & forms. Given this, would you or wouldn't you consider such as "supernatural"?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen writes:
Yup. You're definitely Thought!
quote:I differ in opinion. Eurocentrism by definition implies the utilization of European cosmology in reference to non-European cultures. Supernatural is defined as "Of or existing outside the natural world." This linear view is alien to traditional African value systems. Africans recognize the existence of non-visible forces. For example when African spirtual belifs were transfered to the West in the form of Christianity this segregation between the natural and supernatural world manifested itself in the form of a literal interpretation of abstract African beliefs. The unseen power of GOD within the conciousness of man (heaven/hell) became a literal GOD (Man) in heaven. Magic, like many other Eurocentric terms has no corelative within the African world view.
Strange, but I always thought supernatural simply meant natural world except at a higher level and thus 'super'?? If Europeans meant outside the natural world wouldn't they have used 'unnatural' instead?
But everything else, I agree. Europeans especially of the Greco-Roman world wanted to 'humanize' everything even God Himself, even though it goes against the very laws of Judaism and Christianity.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of magic and sorecers, why is Circe depicted as African in the Odyssey? Is she suppose to be from Egypt?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Modern Libya and ancient Libya were two different things. Libya in antiquity was sometimes synomous with Africa.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: To be specific: How would you characterize the belief in the "unseen" superior being?
Evergreen Writes:
Personally I do not believe in a superior being. I believe that man is the supreme being. Furthermore I believe that this is the fundemental cosmology of all original people (so-called Africans, etc.). The word being literally means existance. To exist is to have material objectivity. No being is therefore superior to man within my worldview. Within man and all of nature exists a divine or higher intelligence. This higher intelligence has been misinterpreted by Indo-Aryan society to mean GOD as an external phenomenon in relation to ones self. I believe that this intelligence is ones true self. I also believe this to be the original way (culture).
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ... and according to scholars like Budge, the being of the "unseen" superior being was understood; and that the powers of this being was manifested in various types & forms. Given this, would you or wouldn't you consider such as "supernatural"?
Evergreen Writes:
The very definition of "supernatural" is that which exists OUTSIDE the natural world. What you have described above exists WITHIN all of nature itself and is supremely manifest within the body of man. Man (mind) has dominance over the physical realm. Mans destiny is to connect with that higher part of his being. This is the purpose of ritual in African society.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:the very definition of "supernatural" is that which exists OUTSIDE the natural world.
Exactly. This is why I tried to illustrate in another thread the importance of distinguishing pseudoscience from religion.
For example 'race' is a natural biology concept.
You cannot defend it's existence on a 'faith' basis.
Once we dismiss race as 'biologically' sound, we are left with the somewhat oxymoronic notion of social race.
Social race is more properly denoted as ethnicity.
Ethnicity is a social catagory based on whatever socially significant common characteristics a people are deemed to have - these may be physical, geographic, national, ancestral, religous, etc..
Hence one can speak euphemistically of a scottish race, as opposed to a celtic race, in a social sense.
Still, the notion is mischevious as 'race' however qualified implies a hard science foundation - use of the term instead of ethnicity is meant to lend a sense of objective scientific truth, to a subjective social catagory.
Ok, I digressed...please continue to discuss 'magic'. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The term Magic derives from the word Magi. The Magi were -Indo-Aryan priests from Persia (modern Iran). Indo-Aryan culture is distinguished from so-called African culture by the focus on the objective realm. Good versus evil, GOD as distinct from man, organized religion versus personalized cults, etc.
It is of interest that Magic and Magnesium have the same etymological foundation. Magnesium deficiency relates to calcification. Is there a correlation between the study of the ancient Indo-Aryan Magi and Pineal calcification?
Taboo topic....
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
For clarification; so you don't suppose this was an element in African spiritual thought?
Evergreen Writes:
I see the traditional African worldview placing a greater emphasis on gradients versus Zoroastrian like polarities. The whole concept of the cross roads is about nature versus nurture. So in that sense there is no absolute good or evil. Did the A.E. really regard Set as evil or is negation and destruction a natural part of the universe to be managed through proper ritual?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: I see the traditional African worldview placing a greater emphasis on gradients versus Zoroastrian like polarities.... So in that sense there is no absolute good or evil.
Evergreen Writes:
This whole concept deserves deeper investigation. I am particularly interested in the impact of Zoroastrian thought and the absolutes that came with it on the NE Africans after the return of the Jews from exile in Persia. The Curse of Ham was not created in a vacuum. It is within this context that we should discuss the film the Color of the Cross.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Did the A.E. really regard Set as evil or is negation and destruction a natural part of the universe to be managed through proper ritual?
I guess that would depend on what one considers phenomenon like conflicts, choas, storms, desertification and such. Personally, I see it as something that would fit the description of the latter [highlighted].
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I guess that would depend on what one considers phenomenon like conflicts, choas, storms, desertification and such.
Evergreen Writes:
More importantly one has to ask, how did the A.E.s view such phenomenon.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I guess that would depend on what one considers phenomenon like conflicts, choas, storms, desertification and such.
Evergreen Writes:
More importantly one has to ask, how did the A.E.s view such phenomenon.
From what I've read thus far, it would largely fit in with, "negation and destruction a natural part of the universe". What have you gathered from your understanding of Kemetic perspective on this?
Now of course, Kemetic perspective on "Set" had not remained static; for instance, in the 19th dynasty, the ruling elites seized upon this deity as a sign of 'strength'.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: From what I've read thus far, it would largely fit in with, "negation and destruction a natural part of the universe". What have you gathered from your understanding of Kemetic perspective on this?
Evregreen Writes:
My assessment is the same. More research needs to be done.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Personally I do not believe in a superior being. I believe that man is the supreme being. Furthermore I believe that this is the fundemental cosmology of all original people (so-called Africans, etc.). The word being literally means existance. To exist is to have material objectivity. No being is therefore superior to man within my worldview. Within man and all of nature exists a divine or higher intelligence. This higher intelligence has been misinterpreted by Indo-Aryan society to mean GOD as an external phenomenon in relation to ones self. I believe that this intelligence is ones true self. I also believe this to be the original way (culture).
What do you mean Thought, I mean Evergreen?
God in many monotheistic thoughts is a supreme entity whose existence is all encompassing from the outer reaches of the universe to the very human physical body. He is beyond material existence but is material existence at the same time.
What are we to make of deities like the Egyptian Amun and the Greek godess Leto, both of whose names mean "hidden"? How is African or Indo-Aryan or any world religion differ from each other in its concepts of the divine as being present in both abstractions and in material existence?
quote:The very definition of "supernatural" is that which exists OUTSIDE the natural world. What you have described above exists WITHIN all of nature itself and is supremely manifest within the body of man. Man (mind) has dominance over the physical realm. Mans destiny is to connect with that higher part of his being. This is the purpose of ritual in African society.
I agree, that how can something exist "outside" of nature if natural world is the universe itself? I thought "supernatural" meant simply a higher form of the natural world, as 'super' means high.?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What do you mean Thought, I mean Evergreen?
Evergreen Writes:
Peace brotha. What do I mean about what? Please be specific.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: He is beyond material existence but is material existence at the same time.
Evergreen Writes:
In traditional African society the divine mind is beyond material existence. The agents (neter) of the divine interface with the objective realm. The supreme neter or agent is man and his own individual characteristics. Again this is the science of the cross-roads and nature versus nurture.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: How is African or Indo-Aryan or any world religion differ from each other in its concepts of the divine as being present in both abstractions and in material existence?
Evergreen Writes:
Indo-Aryan cosmology propagates anthropomorphism, so-called African cosmology does not.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I thought "supernatural" meant simply a higher form of the natural world, as 'super' means high.?
Evergreen Writes:
No. What source are you using for this definition?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Peace brotha. What do I mean about what? Please be specific.
I asked about all your comments about spiritual beliefs.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
In traditional African society the divine mind is beyond material existence. The agents (neter) of the divine interface with the objective realm. The supreme neter or agent is man and his own individual characteristics. Again this is the science of the cross-roads and nature versus nurture.
Interesting philosophical thought, but are you correct to apply this to ancient Egyptian belief or other African beliefs?
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Indo-Aryan cosmology propagates anthropomorphism, so-called African cosmology does not.
Not really, since most of the deities referenced to in the earliest Indo-Aryan religious scripts of both the Persians and Vedic Indians were not described in human form but were only known through their powers or natural forces that were made present.
By "Indo-Aryan" I take it you mean Indo-European(?). If so I can go further to include the Romans as another example. The earliest Roman gods were called the 'Numina' and were known to be "faceless" and "formless" but were also known through the forces of nature.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: No. What source are you using for this definition?
Non. I just assumed by the etymology 'super' and 'natural'. Since it would not make any sense to attribute something "outside of nature" unless it is artificial; that is created by man. But even that could be in debate since if man is natural, then is not what he makes a part of nature if it also a part of the universe?
Wow I think I am getting ahead of myself. I am planning on taking a philosophy course.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Indo-Aryan cosmology propagates anthropomorphism, so-called African cosmology does not.
As in deity manifested in human (or animal) forms? If so, would such not apply to African cosmology?
Evergreen Writes:
Anthropomorphism is defined as "...ascribing of human motivation, characteristics, or behaviour to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena".
Pantheism is defined as "...identifying the deity with the various forces and workings of nature".
African practice is pantheistic with defined hierarchy.
Judeo-Christianity is anthropomorthic; GOD is angry, happy, etc. GOD is a man in heaven ....literally!
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I asked about all your comments about spiritual beliefs.
Evergreen Writes:
I can certainly answer a specific question if you have one.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Interesting philosophical thought, but are you correct to apply this to ancient Egyptian belief or other African beliefs?.
Evergreen Writes:
Yes, I am correct.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Not really, since most of the deities referenced to in the earliest Indo-Aryan religious scripts of both the Persians and Vedic Indians were not described in human form but were only known through their powers or natural forces that were made present.
Evergreen Writes:
Form is only one component of anthropomorphism. More relevent is the attribution of human characteristics.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: None. I just assumed....
Evergreen Writes:
Assumptions are not our friend. Always strive to use a scientific approach.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The idea of the 'invisible' supreme being, which is omnipresent. Would you or wouldn't you characterize this to be "supernatural"?
According to Budge, Wiedemann notes the following...
quote: Dr. Wiedemann takes the view that three main elements may be recognized in the Egyptian religion:
[*]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;
[*]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 dieties of vegetation;
[*]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 dicover 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.
From that same source, Budge tells us:
quote: ...neteru, i.e., the beings or existences which in some way partake of the nature or character of God, and are usually called "gods".
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, of one god, the god being Ra the Sun-god, who, it must be remembered, was the type and *symbol* of *God*.
^^Egyptian concepts, based on claims made in these citations, could very well fall into "Pantheism", as defined earlier, but question now is, do you think that either Wiedemann or Budge has made a fair assessment about Egyptian concepts, as they put forth. If so, what do you suppose they mean by one "God" here, "the creator of the universe"?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic