Set_it_Straight.pdf

Set It Straight!

by DenytEnAmun

This article discusses Set as portrayed in ancient Egypt and as understood in

the modern day Temple of Set. This was DenytEnAmun's first article on Set.

Every Setian is sooner or later bound to form some sort of opinion on the entity

whose name s/he has taken as a part of her/himself. Whether Set exists or not,

and what should we think about his Priesthood, are two of the bunch of very

frequently discussed issues in the Temple. The lack of empirically testifiable

evidence gives these questions an aura of perennial problems. Sometimes the

possibility of Set's existence has been tried to be refuted on the basis that

we cannot know about it, that all attempts at apprehending him are mere mystical

nonsense. What more, profane society - if it is at all familiar with Set the

Egyptian god - knows him as an envious and savage murderer, sexual pervert, and

what not that seems to justify condemning his 'followers' as sneaky 'devil

worshippers'.

This sketchy article will focus on whether there is any evidence to support our

image of Set as the universal god of consciousness and non-nature (the

particularizations of which we in a way are) -- not the butcher of Osirian myth.

In his lucid account Seth: the God of Confusion , H. Te Velde states that the

meaning of the name of Set is uncertain by modern etymological standards. This

in mind we may examine some of the pseudo-etymologies. Plutarch offers 'the

overmastering' or 'overpowering', and then indicates that in many cases the name

may mean 'turning back' or 'overpassing'. No egyptian speculation supports the

latter meaning directly. Te Velde suggests that the egyptian theologian would

have agreed with the first meaning as it goes hand in hand with Set's

mythological function. In the Coffin Texts (of the Middle Kingdom) the first

meaning might have been avoided by substituting the Set-animal by a sign that

means 'to separate'. This sign later fell into disuse, but Te Velde says the

meaning of Set as 'the god set apart' or 'the god who separates' was carried on.

"The Seth-animal functions as a determinative for words indicating concepts

divergent from the normal order, which to the egyptian mind was given by gods

and is guarded by them, and it has a negative meaning." (p. 24) In Gods of the

Egyptians (part II: p. 244) Budge puts it that Set was generally thought to be

the cause of every thing which tended to reverse the ordinary course of nature

and of law and order. From a moral point of view he was thus the personification

of sin and evil. Recalling what Serge Sauneron's The Priests of Ancient Egypt

has to say about the Egyptian world- view, the negative connotations become

understandable. Sauneron explains that the Egyptians thought that "the universe,

predetermined since its creation, has been organized for all eternity according

to patterns unvaryingly alike" (p. 29), and that holding up this balance is

indispensable, moreover not by 'inventing' new solutions when difficulties

arise, but rather by seeking the already existing remedy from old texts.

(p. 119) Rostislav Holthoer, the professor of Egyptology in the University of

Uppsala (in Sweden), who teaches the subject also in Helsinki University,

mentioned on one class that "The 'nefer' of the people was to particularize the

neteru, thus to uphold Ma'at, the universal order. This was felt to be just,

good and purposeful."

According to Te Velde Set's (and Nepthys') birth was the beginning of confusion.

Set caused disorder even before his name existed, and disturbed the regular

processes of creation [as reflected in his allegedly disorderly birth; Plutarch:

"not in due season or manner, but with a blow he broke through his mother's side

and leapt forth".] Te Velde observes that this is in keeping with Set's

unpredictable and violent nature. While discussing the significance of Set's

testicles he comes to a like- minded opinion: "The testicles of Set represent the

savage, elementary, yet undifferentiated urges ..." He seeks to establish that

Set was a sort of inevitable disorder in order, whose myths render possible

experiencing unacceptable things within fixed bounds. Set would thus be a

"'spirit of disorder'... the lord of unbridled forces in nature and in

civilization." (p. 56) Set, the antisocial god, cut off from the community of

the gods?

Well, Set does not really fit into the established view, that seems clear. The

de Lubicz [See #2L, S] interpretation of Set as per the premise that the aim of

Egyptian religion was a conscious return to theCause/Source, is that Set is the

principle of concreteness, fixation, and separation. He represents "the fall

into nature" ('Sethian affirmation of duality'), materiality, and in general

everything that de Lubicz considers animalistic. This is a very Osirian (or

'Horian' as she might call it) interpretation and sounds as if she rather

forcibly tried to integrate Set into her scheme.

Personally I think Te Velde has a good point, for non-Setians might indeed have

tried to include Set into their world- view (and thus 'negate' his power), or

persecute (for the sake of the harmony of the universe!) his Priesthood when

this didn't work out. That Set's name was used to denote to non-natural

concepts (to what was not of the neteru/natural principles), indicates that he

originally stood for something that didn't belong to that order. If we take

into account that at the very least after the XX dynasty Set's cult suffered a

real persecution mania and that in later theology he was reinterpreted, it seems

that nothing certain of his original concept has survived. [For hardly would any

original Egyptian Priesthood have been a lettuce-eating bunch of bacchanalian

criminals?] In the Osirian myth he became merely "the enemy of gods and the

murderer of Osiris, the being who revolted against the order established by the

highest god." (Te Velde, p. 150) de Lubicz must have seen Set through the

Osirian lense. On the basis of this material, however, I think that we are not

at all too far out on the limb if we presume Set might indeed have been the god

of consciousness, the neter of that which is the single manifestation of life

unbound by fixed laws on this planet. Consciousness has made man unpredictable

and often an instigator of confusion, disorder and violence as well [see #17D].

Te Velde says that Set came into being accidentally (p. 29) [as if by "an

unknown celestial fusion"...], and that despite attempts to marry (or tame) him,

he remains an outsider. (p. 30) The latter has been true of consciousness, too,

throughout the ages of suppression, sublimation and what ever tricks to 'play

it out'. But was the whole thing an accident? Set - 'the one apart', 'the cause

of separation' - did not fit into the Egyptian all-embracing model, and neither

does a distinct and autonomous psyche fit into most non-Setian philosophies.

[de Lubicz should perhaps have taken Set, the Giver of the Gift of independent

consciousness (which is not seeking to harmonize with the way of Providence, the

way of the One), as a kind of 'extracosmic Providence' that she denies on page

132 of #2S.]

The concept of Set in the present day Temple of Set has been discussed over and

over again, and so I'll remain content with a scrap on the general subject of

the possibility of communicating with him. From an Ouspenskian point of view

[#19B, C], Set might be taken as a symbol for what you are not yet enough

yourself. If you do not know yourSelf and are not truly conscious of yourSelf,

then hardly will you be able to apprehend someone who is defined as the origin

of that which is still undeveloped in you (consciousness). It might prove a bit

difficult to emphathize with a neter of non- nature in case your consciousness

is most of the time in the grip of mechanical/natural phenomena. Even the Bible

is plain about this: "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear

them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8: 47) To fulfil the promise of the

Bible (:)), take steps to develop the non-natural presence of Self in you, and

to establish its independence of and control over the mechanical objective

universe, and you will certainly also increase your chances of apprehending Set,

the Being whose very essence is not of nature. [You cannot establish meaningful

rapport even with your fellow humans unless yo u first learn a common language.]

From another vantage point, any noetic experiences of yours will probably remain

on the level of belief and imagination (mystical nonsense) unless you have

trained yourself in sound reasoning also. Moreover, you will not be able to

communicate the experience intelligently without sufficient mastery of the

domain of reason (and language). This in turn again depends on your properly

'arranging' your soul (Plato's allegory of the state in which all parts do their

proper job -- the belly and heart subservient to the head; Ouspensky's ideas

about developing a 'Deputy Steward', and so on). I think a most commendable way

to approach Set [if the reasoning for the necessity of the influence of Set in

Crystal Tablet makes sense to you in the first place] is simply to get on with

Xeper. In due time you will most probably uncover new instruments of cognition

[learn to think in non-natural categories], which may help you deal with the

issue more carefully. Only then can Set really become more than a symbol for

you - regardless of whether you conceive of him as an objective entity who in a

way comes to 'dwell within' (energize) you as you restructure your psyche, or

as an indwelling potential for development and an energy source within the human

mind (a metamodel for transformation). Of course this doesn't mean that you

should hide questions in the nearest closet; rather I urge you to think about

them, and to discuss them with others. That's the only way to refine your

dialectic and to get somewhere with yourSelf.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: