Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World

A Work of Reclamation and Restitution in Twelve Books

Book 12 - The Mysteries and Miracles

[Page 805] The Mysteries were a dramatic mode of representing the gnosis or science of the Egyptian mythology and eschatology. They are the mysteries of Amenta. It was in these the dead were raised, the blind were made to see, the dumb to speak, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk, the manes to become bird-headed. Hence the scenes of their occurrence were in spirit-world, where the manes made their transformation visibly, and the mortal put on immortality. The greater mysteries were founded on the resurrection from the dead [Page 806] with the Ka or the bird-headed Horus as the representative of a survival in spirit. As we have seen in the “Pistis Sophia”, Jesus tells the disciples that “the mystery of the resurrection of the dead healeth from demoniac possessions, from sufferings and all diseases. It also
healeth the blind, the dumb, the maimed, the halt” ; and he promises that whosoever shall achieve the gnosis of this wisdom shall have the power of performing these mysteries of the resurrection which only become miracles when exoterically rendered in the canonical Gospels (P. S., B. 2, 279). Amenta in the mythos was the secret earth of the nocturnal sun. In the eschatology it is the spirit-world in which the dead become once more the living, and attained their continuity by being proved and passed as true for all eternity. If they failed, it was here they died the second death, and never rose again. Amenta was the world of the blind, the deaf and dumb, the maimed, the halt, and impotent because it was the world of the dead.
Thus the miracles of the canonical Gospels repeat the mysteries of the Ritual, and the scene of these was in the earth of the manes, not in the earth of mortals. It was there the deliverer wrought his “miracles” in the eschatological representation, whether as Horus, the son of Osiris, or as Iusa, the son of Atum-Ra. The Egyptian religion had no need of miracles. It did not postulate the supernatural. The superhuman and ideally divine were a part of and not apart from nature. The nether-earth was the other half of this and the Gospel history has been based upon that other earth of the manes being mistaken for the earth of mortals. In the Ritual, and in the gnostic writings, we find the mystery, the events, the characters, the Christ, the Virgin-Mother, the miracles, replaced upon their own proper footing and on the only ground of their existence which is eschatological and was a means of working out the drama in Amenta by means of the mythology that was previously extant. The so-called miracles of Jesus were not only impossible on human grounds; they are historically impossible because they were pre-extant as mythical representations which were made on grounds that were entirely non-human in the drama of the mysteries that was as non-historical as the Christmas pantomime. The miracles ascribed to Jesus on earth had been previously assigned to Iusa the divine healer who was non-historical in the pre-Christian religion. Horus, whose other name is Jesus, is the performer of “miracles” which are repeated in the
Gospels, and which were first performed as mysteries in the divine nether-world. But if Horus or Iusa be made human on earth, as a Jew in Judea, we are suddenly hemmed in by the miraculous, at the centre of a maze with nothing antecedent for a clue; no path that leads to the heart of the mystery, and no visible means of exit therefrom. With the introduction of the human personage on mundane ground, the mythical inevitably becomes the miraculous; you cannot have the history without it; thus the history was founded on the miracles which are perversions of the mythology that was provably pre-extant.
Not only is it represented in the Gospels that Jesus raised the dead but that he also conferred power on the disciples to do likewise. They are to preach and proclaim that the kingdom of heaven is at [Page 807] hand, to “heal the sick and raise the dead” (Matt. X. 5-8). So the followers, called the “Children of Horus”, had the power given them previously by their Lord to raise the dead. In the Pyramid texts of Teta (line 270) it is said, “Horus hath given his children power that they may raise thee up” ; that is, from the funeral couch. But this resurrection was in Amenta, the earth of eternity, not in the earth of time, and those who were raised up for the second life are the manes, not mortal beings in the human world. It was not pretended that they were Egyptians in the time of Teta, the first king of the sixth dynasty. The Christians babble about the mysteries of revealed religion, which mysteries never were revealed except to those
who had been duly initiated. These were mysteries to the Christians simply because they had not been revealed to them. They are the mysteries of ancient knowledge reproduced as miracles of modern ignorance. Such mysteries of the Christian faith, as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Virgin Birth, the Transfiguration on the Mount, the Passion, Death, Burial, Resurrection and Ascension, Transubstantiation and Baptismal Regeneration, were all extant in the mysteries of Amenta with Horus or Iu-em-hetep as the central figure of the pre-Christian Jesus.
This mode of making miracles from the mysteries can be traced in the canonical Gospels. For instance, according to John, when Jesus reappears to the seven fishers on board the boat to cause the miraculous draught of fishes it is after his resurrection from the dead. Consequently, the transaction is in a region beyond the tomb, therefore in spirit-world, not in the life on earth. Whereas in Luke’s version, his reappearance was in the earth-life and is not a reappearance after death. Yet the miraculous draught of fishes is the same in both books; and either the transaction is historical in Luke and has been relegated to the after-life in another world by John, or else the mythical version was first and has been converted into an historical event by Luke. But here, as in other cases, there is no corroboration of the history to be adduced, whereas the priority of John’s version is attested by the Ritual where the fisher, the seven fishers, the fishing and the fish belong not to this earth but to that other world beyond the tomb and to the mysteries of Amenta.
When Sebek in the Ritual (ch. 113) catches the fish in his marvellous net this is proclaimed by Ra to be “a mystery”. But when Simon Peter in the Gospel catches the great draught of fishes the mystery becomes a miracle.
Mythology knows nothing of miracle, nor the need of it. Miracle has no place in the Egyptian Ritual. But the Ritual shows us how the necessity for it arose as a modus operandi when the gnosis had to be accounted for by ignorance and the mythos was converted into human history. For example, the sun or the sun-god Atum is described in the Ritual as going over the surface of the lake of Mati, in Abydos, the place of rebirth, or of sunrise. That which is done mythically by the god is performed by the manes on the eschatological plane, and as he is in the human likeness, it follows that he must walk the water in the sun-god’s track. He says, “the great God who is there is Ra himself. I walk on his road; I know the surface of the lake of Mati. The water of Mati is the road by which Atum-Ra [Page 808] goes to traverse the field of divine harvest” (Rit., 17). In the first phase the sun (or solar god) traverses the celestial water at dawn. In the eschatological continuation the human soul in Amenta does the same because assimilated to the character of the god. It is but a mode of representing phenomena in the two worlds of the double earth, the imagery of upper earth being repeated in spirit-world. But if we substitute a human being for the solar god or the manes in Amenta, and make him walk the water in our world on the surface of the sea or lake of Galilee, instead of the lake of Mati in Amenta, the water-walking can only be done by miracle. Such is the genesis of the Biblical miracles in both the Old Testament and the New. This we are now able to prove twice over by means of the original matter and mode of the mythos in the Egyptian eschatology that was humanized or literalized in legends and at last converted into Christian history.
You cannot rationalize the Bible miracles by reducing them to what may be thought reasonable dimensions. As Matthew Arnold said, “this is as if we were startled by the extravagance of supposing Cinderella’s fairy godmother to have actually changed the pumpkin into a coach-and-six, but should suggest that she did really change it into a one-horse-cab”. It is not a matter of degree or proportion, but of a radical difference in the fundamental nature of things. It is not the kind of transformation that was applied to the primary facts, nor is this transformation the result of imagination. It was not a result of the faculty of imagining that a man should be supposed to walk the water and not sink. Such an imagining was controverted by all the past of human experience. When the Egyptians portrayed a human impossibility — a miracle — they depicted a pair of feet walking on the water. This was a mode of superhuman force first made manifest by the elemental powers such as light and darkness, the wind, or the spirit of the storm. The water-walker was an old type of deity. The Christian miracles are false modes of explaining that which was ignorantly misappropriated. The gnostic interpretation of the Kamite mysteries had no need of miracles, no reversal or violation of natural law. The process by which miracles, or total violations of natural law, arose, was through perversion of ancient knowledge by later ignorance — not in the false or exaggerated reports of eye-witnesses. Nor could anything be settled by a conflict of opinions in the domain of ideas. We must have some foothold and ground of fact to go upon even to fight the battle. As it is in physical science, we have to ascertain the knowable. It avails nothing to take refuge in the unknown or to enshroud ourselves in mystery. The legends of mythology were not ideal, nor based upon abstract ideas. They were not first evolved from the inner consciousness, but from facts in outward nature that are for ever verifiable. The mysteries that “historic Christianity” took over without understanding, and preserved as food for faith, or as problems for metaphysical speculation, are fathomable and even simple when truly interpreted, but they have and can have no solution on the supposed historic ground. And with its bogus miracles surreptitiously derived from the ancient mysteries
by falsification of the myths, it has destroyed or tended to destroy all standing-ground [Page 809] of common sense in natural reality. With its “historical” virgin mother of a God who was her “historical” child, it has made a double mockery of nature, human and divine. With its risen corpse for an anointed Christ the only Son of God, it has deified an image of death itself and made a mortuary of the human mind.
When it is conclusively proved that the Christian miracles are nothing more than a pagan mode of symbolical representation literalized, there is no longer any question of contravening, or breaking, or even challenging any well-known laws of nature. The discussion as to the probability or possibility of miracle on the old grounds of belief and doubt is closed for ever. A glance at the Egyptian pictures will show that the Horus or Christ is the young sun-god who walks the waters in Amenta not on the upper earth, and that the evil spirits who enter the swine and are driven down into the lake are the souls of those who were condemned in the great judgment as typhonian, the black pig being a type of Sut the evil being. A study of these miracles as they were originally rendered will lead to an understanding of their
true significance, and here as everywhere else the truth of the matter once attained must ultimately put an end to the false belief:
Falsehood hath nothing in the world to do,
But lie to live and die to prove the true!
With what facility the miracle could be manufactured for the exoteric Gospels, canonical or apocryphal, may be seen from the legends in The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (ch. 37). In one character the youthful sun-god, Horus or Jesus, was represented as a sort of divine dyer. He is called the great one who produces colours. In a passage of the Ritual (ch. 153), as rendered by Birch, it is said that “the great one journeys to the production of colours” These are the colours which are produced when the sun, or the child-Horus, or Jesus, rises from the lotus to dye the blue heaven with the hues of dawn. This is shown by a reference in the same passage to the sycamore tree of dawn. Now, in one of the numerous folktales that were derived from the mythos, this is made a miracle of in a legend of the Infancy. It was as the child-Horus that the sun arose to create the colours; and, as a child, it is said the Lord Jesus entered the shop of a dyer where lay many cloths which were waiting to be dyed each of a different colour. Taking them all up together he threw the whole lot into a vessel of Indian blue. The dyer cried out and said the boy had ruined them all. But Jesus said he would cause each one to come forth of the colour that was desired, and he took them out of the vessel one by one, each one being dyed of the very colour that the dyer wanted.
The story of child-Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas who, when five years old, took clay and formed the images of twelve sparrows, which turned the word into a deed when Jesus bade them fly, is a miracle manufactured from a mystery of Amenta. When the manes were transformed from mummy to spirit they became bird-headed in the likeness of Horus whose head was that of a sparrow-hawk. This in the folktale becomes a sparrow, and twelve sparrows created by Jesus in the miracle are the representatives of the twelve great spirits of [Page 810] Horus which have the head of the sparrow-hawk in the mystery of Amenta.
When evil spirits enter swine and are driven down the mountainside to be drowned in the lake of darkness the representation is mythical, not miraculous. The mount is rooted in Amenta. The scene is in the earth of eternity. The mount was called the mount of birth in heaven. This was ascended by the manes who had passed through the judgment-hall and come forth as the good spirits, whereas the condemned were driven back and literally sent to the devil by entering the pig of Sut, which had become a type of all impurity. The miracle begins when the avenging Har-Tema is made historical, the pig actual, and the transaction takes place on this our upper earth. We must go to the Egyptian drawings in the drama of the mysteries for the verifiable fact; and once we are in presence of the real truth we learn that the argument of Professor Huxley against the miracle is just as unprofitable as the Christian belief in the miracle. Here, as everywhere, the miracle results from a misinterpretation of the mythos out of which the gospels were ultimately evolved, piecemeal, and put together in a spurious history, with a spurious version of Horus the mortal, and a spurious spectre of Horus in the spirit.
In performing his miracles with a word, in being the word incarnated or made truth in person, in wielding a magical power over the elements, in casting out devils, in causing the spirits of evil to enter the swine, in healing the woman with the issue of blood, in giving sight to the blind, in transforming and transfiguring himself, in suddenly concealing himself, in walking upon the sea, in his personal conflict and battles with Satan, in raising the dead to life out of the earth, in resuscitating himself on the third day; in all these and other things Jesus is accredited with doing exactly what was attributed to Horus in the Ritual and in the Egyptian mysteries. But these miraculous things were never done by mortal or immortal on the surface of our earth. They are other-world occurrences in the true rendering, and they can only be re-related to reality as a mythical mode of representing the scenes in the drama of Amenta. The superhuman attributes are possessed, the transformation and transfiguration effected, the waters walked, the evil spirits cast out to enter the typhonian swine; sight is restored to the blind, the dumb are given a mouth, the dead are raised up out of the earth by Horus in this divine nether-world termed the earth of eternity and not on the earth of Seb in the world of time.
The historical character of the four Gospel narratives must stand or fall by the historical facts of the miracles. From the birth derived from a virgin to the corporeal resurrection of the Christ, the sole standing-ground is upon miracle. No amount of Jesuitical dialectic or logical argument based upon false premises, can ever make right, as a trustworthy matter of faith, that which is verifiably wrong as matter of fact. Yet the faith was founded on the uttermost falsification of natural fact as the ground of the history.
On the one hand we find a belief that these miraculous transactions, these teachings of the Christ and the Christ himself were historical. On the other, we have the proof that they were unhistorical, a proof upon evidence that has [Page 811] never been tampered with, and that is directly derived from witnesses that do not, cannot lie. The miracles of the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus; the miracles of giving sight to the blind and of raising the dead, the descent into Hades, and the resurrection in three days or on the third day, are all Egyptian, all in the Ritual. They were previously performed by the Christ who was not historical, the Christ of the Egypto-gnostics who is Horus or Jesus, identical with the Osirian Christ who was Horus the lord by name, and who, as the records show, was also extant as a divine type or spiritual impersonation as Iusa or Iu-em-hetep many thousand years ago.
A crucial example of the mode in which the gospel history was manufactured from the matter of the mythos and the eschatology is furnished by the miracle of miracles of the loaves and fishes. In one account the multitude of men, women and children are fed on five loaves and two fishes, and the remains of the meal were sufficient to fill twelve baskets (Matt. XVI. 17-21). In the other miracle, or second version of the same, the multitude are fed on seven loaves and a few small fishes, and there were seven baskets full of broken pieces. But for the Ritual we might never have known the correct number of loaves that did suffice to feed the vast multitude. They are seven in one place and five in another, and both the seven and five are found in one and the same book. This difference, however, serves for Matthew to make out a second miracle (XV. 36). The speaker in the Ritual says, “There are seven loaves on earth with Seb;
there are seven loaves with Osiris (in Amenta); there are seven loaves at Annu with Ra in heaven” (ch. 53). “Henceforth let me live upon corn in your presence, ye gods, and let there come one who bringeth to me that I may feed from those seven loaves which he hath brought for Horus” (Renouf, Rit., ch. 52). “It is the god of the sektet boat and of the maatit boat who hath brought them (the loaves) to me at Annu” (ch. 53). These seven loaves constitute the celestial diet on which the multitude of souls are fed in Annu, called “the place of multiplying bread”. But those who are fed upon the seven loaves in the celestial locality of Annu are not human beings on earth; they are manes in Amenta where Horus is the bread of life as giver of food to the quickened spirits of the dead; and as the transaction occurred in the next life there was no need of a miracle in this life by asserting that about five thousand hungry men, besides women and children, were fed upon five or seven loaves of bread and two fishes.
The synoptics do not mention the incident, but according to John (VI. 9) who retains much more of the Egyptian wisdom in his Gospel, there was a lad present in the scene who had with him “five barley loaves and two fishes”. “Jesus therefore took the loaves from him and distributed them to the people”.
We have identified the feeding of the multitude of manes on the seven loaves that were brought to Horus as distributor of the bread of life, and the lad who brings the bread to Jesus in the Gospel with the one who brings the seven loaves to Horus, or, it may be, the five loaves to Taht, in the Ritual, and who is described as “someone” who comes with the bread of Horus and Taht which is ritualistically represented by the seven loaves. A primitive concept of the infinite had been expressed in terms of [Page 812] boundless food and drink. Providence was the provider; and the power that provided the fruits of the earth or water was Providence. When bread was made the providing power or godhead itself was figured by the Egyptians as an illimitable loaf, the food of spirits or celestial diet for the life to come. The one
great loaf was equivalent to the one supreme source of soul. Seven loaves were numerically equivalent to the seven souls of Ra. The human soul was fed from the bread of life as typical of divine source. With bread of that kind one loaf might have sufficed without the pretence of a miracle, as it was cut and come again without diminution. It was the kind of bread which keeps on rising and expanding for ever as in the German tale of Jesus and the miserly woman with her dough.
Annu is the place of bread in which the multitudes of manes are fed as men, women and children also, if the younglings of Shu are included. It is called the place of multiplying bread. There are seven loaves of bread with Ra in Annu (Rit., ch. 53 B) on which the manes are fed by Horus. They feed upon the seven loaves of celestial bread which were brought for Horus to feed the manes with by a divine messenger.
Seven loaves were brought for Horus and there were also loaves for Taht (ch. 52), the two which correspond to the seven loaves and the five in the “historical” miracles. The manes prays that he may feed on the seven loaves that are brought for Horus, and the loaves that were brought for Taht, which shows at least that there was more than one set of loaves, when the multitude were fed on the divine diet in the place of multiplying bread. In the Gospel the multitude recline upon the grass. In the Ritual they rest upon the grassy sward beneath the sycamore of Hathor (ch. 52, 4). But when the multitudes were fed in Annu they were the souls of the departed, and the symbolical seven loaves on which they fed was Ka-bread that was neither made nor eaten on earth, nor did it need a miracle to make the good go far
enough. Annu was a mythical locality which did not supply the conditions for a miracle. A miracle had to be performed only when the eschatological representation was shifted from the mount of Annu in Amenta to a mountain in Judea. One hieroglyphic sign of the mount hetep is a pile of food. The mount was the place of feasting for the followers of Horus, the beatified spirits of the departed. “Every feast on earth and on the mountain” signifies the feasts of the living and the dead; the living upon earth, the dead or the departed on the mountain. In the feasting on the mount “Jesus went up into the mountain and sat there.
And there came unto him great multitudes, having with them the lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and they cast them down at his feet; and he healed them; insomuch that the multitude wondered when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel. And Jesus called his disciples and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me three days and have nothing to eat”. (Matt. XV. 29-32.) The miracles of healing, including the casting out of evil spirits and the raising of the dead, as portrayed in the Ritual and corroborated by the “Pistis Sophia”, occurred in the resurrection on the mount; and this shows that those who had been with Jesus having nothing to eat for three days had been awaiting their [Page 813]
resurrection on the third day, and that they were the manes and not mortals.
The only reason why the blind and deaf and dumb, the palsied and the lame, including the dead, assembled in their multitudes upon the mount is because this was the mount of resurrection and regeneration, thence of healing, for the manes who had waited in Amenta for the coming of the Lord. The resurrection of Osiris was solemnized at the great Haker festival. This is one of the ten mysteries described in the “Book of the Dead” (ch. 18) said to have been celebrated “before the great circle of gods in Abydos (the place of Osiris’s rebirth and resurrections) on the night of “Haker” (or Ha-k-er-a) when the glorious ones are rightly judged: when the evil dead are parted off, and joy goeth its round in Thinis” (ch. 18, Renouf). The name for this festival is rendered “Come thou hither or Come thou to me” : as the call of Ra upon the mount addressed to Osiris in the valley on the day of resurrection, when the soul of Horus the mortal was blended with Horus the immortal in the mystery of Tattu (ch. 17). The Haker celebration included both fasting and feasting. The word haker signifies fasting, to be famished, as well as denoting the festival of “Come thou to me” or the rite of resurrection. Now, as the comparative process shows an “historical” version of the Haker festival is given in the Gospels where we find an exoteric account of the funeral fast and resurrection feast, in the miracles of healing performed upon the mount and feeding the famished multitude upon the seven loaves of bread. It should be premised that the raising of Osiris, the god in matter was individual, but, at the same time, the resurrection of the dead in Osiris who were the “All Souls” for the year or cycle was general. The supreme miracle of “raising the dead” suffices of itself to show that it belonged to the mysteries of Amenta, as asserted in the “Pistis Sophia”, where the dead were raised; evil spirits were cast out, the blind were made to see, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk, the bed-ridden to get up and go, not by miracle but as a dramatic mode of illustrating the mysteries of the resurrection in the Peri em hru or coming forth to day. It is noticeable that the miracles of healing on the mount described in Matthew (XV. 29-31), are immediately followed by the miracle of multiplying the loaves and fishes. There is no change of scene, the multitude upon the mount remain the same. “And Jesus called unto Him His disciples, and said “I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with Me now three days and have nothing to eat; and I would not send them away fasting”. Thus three days are allotted to the work of healing in the mount, during which time the multitude were fasting in the company of Jesus and his disciples. In the Ritual these are not only the fasting, they are also deprived of breath. They are without a mouth. They are the blind, the dumb, the motionless, in short, they are the deceased awaiting in their coffins and their cells for him who is the resurrection and the life, as the divine healer and deliverer of the manes from Amenta; he is the “divine one who dwelleth in heaven, and who sitteth on the eastern side of heaven” (Rit., ch. 25) that is on Mount Bakhu, the mount of the olive-tree, the only mount on which the dead were ever raised (P. S., B. 2, 279). This healing then was a mystery of the resurrection, the same in the canonical as [Page 814] in the Egypto-gnostic Gospel; the same in both as in the Book of the Dead, or Ritual of the resurrection. Three days was the length of time
allowed for the burial in Amenta. This would constitute a three days’ fasting of the dead. We must discriminate. In the lunar reckoning the resurrection of Osiris in the moon was on the third day, which corresponded to the actual appearance of the light in nature. This death, described by Plutarch, occurred on the seventeenth of the month. In the solar reckoning three whole days and nights were allowed for the burial of the sun or sun-god in the earth. Both are employed in the Gospels but not scientifically. Neither could the complex of soli-lunar reckoning be explicated on the single line of a personal human history.
Both solar and lunar reckonings remain, but hugely gaping apart with a gulf for ever fixed between the two. The Son of Man was to remain three nights as well as days in the “heart of the earth”. That is in keeping with the solar reckoning, whereas the resurrection is on the third day, the same as that of Osiris in the moon. We repeat, there was a two-fold computation of time, lunar and solar, both of which are given in the gospels, but without the gnosis that explained the astronomical mythology. Three days is the full period, and this is the length of time over which the miracles of healing were extended and during which the multitude with Jesus had “nothing to eat”, because they were with him in the Valley of Amenta; the same that were healed by him on the Mount of Resurrection. It was in the resurrection that the dead were raised to life and became spirits. These were the good spirits which were parted from the evil spirits that were then “cast out”. Sight was given to the blind, a mouth to the dumb, hearing was restored to the deaf. The lame were enabled to rise and walk. Then the three days’ fast was ended by the feeding of the multitude on what the Ritual terms celestial diet, i.e., the “seven loaves” of heaven that were supplied as sustenance for the risen dead in Annu, the place of multiplying bread. In the Egyptian mysteries, all who enter the nether world as manes to rise again as spirits are blind and deaf and dumb and maimed and impotent because they are the dead. Their condition is typified by that of mortal Horus who is portrayed as blind and maimed, deaf and dumb in An-arar-ef the abode of occultation, the house of obscurity, the “city of dreadful night” where all the denizens were deaf and dumb and maimed and blind awaiting the
cure that only came with the divine healer who is Horus of the resurrection in the Ritual, or Khunsu, the caster out of demons, or Iu-em-hetep the healer, or Jesus in the Gospels, gnostic or agnostic. Thus the restoring of sight to the blind man, or the two blind men, was one of the mysteries of Amenta that is reproduced amongst the miracles in the canonical gospels.
The speaker in the Ritual often makes the merest allusion to some act of the drama that was visibly performed and fully unfolded in the mysteries. For example, Horus the avenger is described as blending his being with that of the Sightless One, who had been Horus in the flesh (Rit., 17). In a previous allusion (same chapter) the coming of the soul of Ra to embrace and blend with the body-soul of Osiris, to give light and life to the Mummy-God is also described as the act of Horus-Tema who is blended with the Sightless God. In either [Page 815] representation there is a restoration of sight to the blind; and this when written out and narrated as “History” becomes the miracle of Jesus curing the man and giving sight to him who was blind; or to the two men as Osiris and the Osiris, N., or to any number of those who were sightless in the city of the blind. When Horus the deliverer descends into Amenta he is hailed as the prince in the city or the region of the blind. That is, of the dead who are sleeping in their prison cells, and who therefore are the prototypal spirits in prison. He comes to shine into their sepulchres and to restore their sight to the blind. “Hail to Thee, Lord of Light, who art prince of the house which is encircled by darkness and obscurity”, in the city of the blind (Rit., ch. 21). This picture is repeated in the Gospel of Matthew (IV. 16). “The people which sat in darkness saw a great light: and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, to them did the light spring up”. This, as written in the “Book of the Dead” was in Amenta.
The typical blind man of Amenta, then, is Horus in the gloom of his sightless condition, as the human soul obscured in matter or groping in the darkness of the grave. This is Horus An-arar-ef in the city of the blind. And the Horus who comes to restore the lost sight, is he who had been divinized in the likeness of Ra, the holy spirit. It is said of this dual Horus in the Ritual (ch. 17), “The pair of gods are Horus the reconstituter of his father and Horus the prince in the city of blindness”. The second Horus is the spirit perfected. He descends from heaven to the darkness of Amenta as The Light of the World. He is called the one whose head is clothed with a white radiance. His presence shines into the sepulchres and cells of the manes. He comes to the blind in the city of the blind, the place in which blind Horus was enveloped in obscurity. He shows as a great light in the darkness of the land of the dead, and is described as restoring sight to those who are blind, that is to the manes who have not yet attained the beatific or spiritual vision. This is represented as giving sight to the blind. Amenta was looked upon as the earth of the blind. The manes were there as blind folk awaiting sight. The human Horus Har-Khent-An-arar-ef in Sekhem was the prince of the blind, being chief amongst the manes who were sightless or without the means of seeing in the dark. For this reason the mole or shrewmouse was his zootype. The typical blind man in Amenta is the blind Horus who was deprived of sight by Sut, the Power of Darkness. But every manes that entered Amenta was also blind in the darkness of death. Thus there are two blind men, or one as the God and one as the manes; one in the soli-lunar mythos, and one in the eschatology; Horus in his darkness of night or the eclipse; the mortal in the dark of death. Miracle for mystery, this may explain the two different versions of healing the blind in the Gospels. Three of the evangelists know of a single blind man only, who was cured by Jesus, where Matthew reports the healing of two blind men in which he obviously gives two separate versions of one and the same miracle. In the Ritual, then, we can identify the one blind man with Horus in the dark, or without sight (Rit., ch. 18, as Har-Khent-an-maati); the two blind men with Horus and the manes (otherwise [Page 816] with Osiris and the Osiris); and the multitudes of blind people above ground with the manes or the dead in Amenta. There is no need of limiting the miracle of curing the blind to one or two men. Horus the light of the world in the earth of Amenta comes to cure the blind in general who are dwelling in the darkness of the city of the blind, in which the devil (Sut) was dominant previous to the second advent of Horus. The dead in Osiris were as blind mummies awaiting the spiritual light which gave the beatific vision; and Horus comes to unseal the eyes of the manes waking in their coffins.
The poor blind Horus was given eyes at the time when he became the anointed son, and the child of twelve years made his transformation into the adult of thirty years with the head and sight of the hawk, or the beatific vision of Horus in the spirit. He was anointed with oil at the lustration in Abydos, the place of re-birth. Hence one mode of making the anointed or the Christ whom Horus became in this transformation was by anointing with saliva. The lustration of children by spittle was an old Papal rite, and in the Gospel the spittle used to open the eyes of the blind is equivalent to anointing the sightless Horus in Sekhem. In acting the mystery of Amenta the “Eye of Horus”, the anointed son, the light of the world, was brought to blind Horus lying in his darkness. This mystery is reproduced as miracle in the healing of the blind man. “When I am in the world”, says Jesus, “I am the Light of the World”. This is equivalent to bringing the eye of Horus to the benighted manes in Amenta. “When he had spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay”. And in this unsightly way the man is said to have attained his sight in thus becoming the anointed. Such is the puerility of the miraclemongers who misrepresent the mystery-teachers in the Gospels. To preach the “recovery of sight to the blind” was to teach a doctrine of the resurrection and the opening of the eyes in death, such as was set forth dramatically in the mysteries of the Ritual (chs. 20-30). It was the same also in giving a mouth to the dumb; in making the dead to rise and the lame to walk; likewise in casting out evil spirits, and the powers of darkness, the associates of Sut, the Sami or the Sebau, which originated in physical phenomena, and were afterwards mis-rendered as obsessing spirits that were primarily human. When the divine healer and caster-out of demons, Khunsu-Horus, went to Bakhten to exorcise an evil spirit from the possessed Princess, the god was carried there in effigy, as the “driver away of evil spirits that take possession “ of the human body, not as a divinized medicine-man portrayed in human form. The effigy is an image of the wonderful healer who originated as a power of renewal in external nature, and not as a mortal on this earth. The caster-out of demons is also portrayed as Khunsu offering up the abominable pig in the lunar disk as a sacrifice to the Lord of Light (Planisphere of Denderah), the pig being a zootype of Sut the evil one. Thus we reach a root-origin in the war of light and darkness, or Horus and Sut, that is waged forever in the Moon. The black boar, Sut, makes his attack upon the eye, which is healed by Horus or Khunsu, Taht or Ra. The power of light was then the healer of the wound in nature that was wrought by the representative of darkness as the pig, the Apap-dragon, or the adversary Sut. Hence the eye of Horus in [Page 817] the moon is a symbol of healing, and of safety or salvation; an amulet, therefore, or fetish, good against the powers of darkness. There was no miracle in the natural phenomena. There was no miracle involved or taught in the original mode of representation. But when a “human mortal” with the name of Jesus is put in place of Horus, Taht or Khunsu, he becomes the supposed to be, but for ever
impossible, miracle-monger; Jesus, the Jewish Saviour, who is described as coming into a world of blind people; some of whom are blind figuratively, others actually. The Scribes and Pharisees are denounced as blind, “blind guides”, “fools and blind”, “blind leaders of the blind”, Jesus restores the sight of those who are physically blind, “to many blind he gave sight”. That is in fitting the canonical Jesus to the rôle of Horus. A form of blind Horus described by Isaiah leaves no room for doubt that the Hebrew Messiah was the Egyptian Horus. This is he who is blind; “my servant, who is blind as he that is made perfect, and blind as the Lord’s servant” (chs. XLII, XLIII). This servant of the Lord is the suffering Horus who was portrayed as the servant of Osiris the Lord, blind, dumb, and therefore deaf, but as being perfected in
serving the Lord, who “confirmed the word of His servant”. Being perfected marks the change from the servant, as Horus who was born blind in matter to Horus in spirit, the restorer of sight to the blind, that is, to the dead. Also the word of the servant was confirmed by the coming of Horus as the word-made-truth in Har-Ma-Kheru. But it was in the earth of Amenta that Horus came to restore the sight to the blind, and in the canonical Gospels Judea, full of blind folk being cured by miracle, is just Amenta wrong-side uppermost, with the drama of the double-earth in a state of topsy-turvydom through the conversion of the ancient mysteries into Gospel-miracles.
In arranging for the resurrection of the dead, as performed in the mysteries of Osiris, the funeral bed, called the Khenkhat, is prepared as the couch of the mummy. It is said to the deceased, “I have fastened thy bones together for thee. I have given thy flesh to thee”. “I have collected thy members for thee”. This is in arranging the deceased upon the funeral couch, for his rising from, or as, the dead (ch. 170). “Hail N”, it is said to the deceased upon the funeral couch, “Arise on thy bed and come forth” (Rit., chs. 169-170). Here is an instructive instance of the way in which the mysteries of the Ritual have been converted into the miracles of the Gospels. There are two chapters concerning the funeral bed. The first is “on making the Khenkhat to stand up”; the other is on “arranging the Khenkhat”. We repeat, the Khenkhat is the funeral bed on which the dead were laid out in Amenta, waiting for the coming of Horus, lord of the resurrection, to wake the sleepers who are in their coffins or lying breathless on their couches in the likeness of inert Osiris. It is the couch of the dead that is set up on end like the mummy-case with the body inside which is thus erected on its feet as a mode of rendering the mystery of the resurrection or re-erection of the deceased (Rit., ch. 169). This becomes a miracle in the Gospel, when the dead are raised, and those who were paralytic take up their bed and walk. In the next chapter (170) on the arrangement of the funeral bed it is said to the risen one, “Thou settest forth on thy [Page 818] way. Horus causeth thee to stand up at the risings”. Then the deceased, as the risen mummy, is seen to be walking off. That is in the resurrection. Here, as elsewhere, the mystery of Amenta becomes a miracle when represented on this earth. That change would of itself account for a huge falsification, to say nothing of the intent and tendency of the writers, which follow and overshadow the truth of the ancient wisdom all
through as darkly as the night the day; for if ancient Egypt was the light of the world, Christian theology has assuredly been its impenetrable shadow.
As already shown, a reduced form of the mysteries that were acted in the Osirian drama may here and there be recognized in the form of parables and portable sayings. Take the mystery of Tattu in the 17th chapter of the Ritual, by means of which the Sayings of the Lord, quoted from “the Gospel of the Egyptians” by the two Clements, can be explicated. The Lord himself being asked by someone when his kingdom would come, replied: “When two shall be one. When that which is without is as that which is within, and the male with the female (shall be) neither male nor female” (Clem., Rom.). When Salome asked, when those things about which she questioned should be made known, the Lord said: “When you tread under foot the covering of shame, and when out of two is made one, and the male with the female
is neither male nor female” (Clem. Alex., Stromata). This is that blending of the two souls or two sexes in one which was figured and effected in the mystery of Tattu. This blending of two halves in one whole, which is a likeness of neither, but a new image of both, is exemplified thrice over in the Ritual, when a soul was established that should live for ever. Ra is blended with Osiris; Shu with Tefnut; child-Horus with Horus the adult. Ra represents the divine soul, and Osiris the body-soul in matter. Shu represents the male, and Tefnut the female nature. Child-Horus is the mortal and Horus in spirit the immortal. Thus the divine soul was blended with the soul of matter; female with male, and mortal with immortal in the mystery of Tattu. The mystery was of course performed, and in the present instance, the drama consists
of three acts with six different characters which are Ra and Osiris, Shu and Tefnut, Horus the sightless, with Horus the bringer of the beatific vision. In the saying quoted from “the Gospel according to the Egyptians” the mystery has been reduced to the male and female becoming neither male nor female in the mystical marriage, the other factors being omitted. This shows the process by which the mysteries of the Ritual were reduced and made portable in the miracles, the parables and sayings, or Logoi, whether as separate sayings or as miscellaneous collections. A distant echo of the doctrine is to be heard in the Gospel according to Matthew (XXII. 30): “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven”. So remote is this from the mystical marriage in Tattu that the
mystery in Amenta is limited to sexual conjunction. Now we learn from the Ritual that one mode of making the change from matter to spirit and of being unified in the type beyond sex was by discarding the garb of the female in the preparation of the manes for the funeral bed at the time of the second birth (Rit., ch. 170). The garment is again referred to in “the [Page 819] fragments of a lost Gospel” when the speaker says “he himself will give you your garment”. “His disciples say unto him, when wilt thou be manifest to us, and when shall we see thee? He saith, when ye shall be stripped and not be ashamed’ (Grenfell and Hunt, New Sayings of Jesus, p. 40), which is the same thing as being freed from the garb of shame upon the funeral bed. This is no mystical reference to Genesis III. 7, but to the mystery of Amenta and a ceremony that was performed in the nether-world, of which it is said, “Thou puttest on the pure garment and thou divestest thyself of thy apron when thou stretchest thyself on the funeral bed’ (Rit., ch. 172).
“Thou receivest a bandage of the finest linen”, in place of the old garb of shame, or the apron which was now a symbol of the flesh. Lastly, amongst the mysteries of Amenta which were converted into Gospel miracles one of the most arresting is that of the Widow and her only son whom Jesus raised up from the funeral bier at Nain (Luke VII. 14), because Isis is the widow by name in the Ritual who was represented by the disconsolate swallow as the widow who has lost her mate, and Horus was her only son. The connection of the child with the widow in Egypt is already seen in the Gospel of Thomas or Tum, which goes far towards identifying the child-Jesus with the child of Isis. Moreover, the mystery shows us how the mother as Isis became a widow. When Osiris had been put to death, the birth of the child-Horus followed the decease of his father, and his mother was consequently the widow who had an only son in Horus, the only child of his mother. In the mystery of Tattu, child-Horus was raised up from the dead when Horus in the spirit came to the funeral couch and the immortal was blended with the mortal in the mystery of the resurrection. This is repeated in the Gospel as one of the most telling of the mysteries that were Christianized in the miracles.



Ancient Egypt - The Light of the World

Main Library