Support our Kickstarter

The Egyptian Pursuit of Happiness

osiris.jpg

 

The following is excerpted from Embodying Osiris, the Secrets of Alchemical Transformation, available from Quest Books.

 

Is the Middle East ready for the hard work involved in establishing a form of democracy befitting their needs and desires? How will Europe and the United States -- despite its rhetoric -- accommodate wholesale democratic change in the Middle East? These are a few critical questions facing this region as the old guard falls and the promise of new governmental structures are in the offing. Events are moving quickly, perhaps faster than these significant developments require. Revising constitutions, forming transitional governments, establishing democratic institutions in lands that are, for better or worse, not used to the workings that insure lasting individual freedom requires more than a revolution. Instead, there needs to be a gradual evolution in the consciousness of people; old habits are hard to change.

Egypt is a country founded on countless coups, foreign occupation and annexation. It is a country with a rich cultural tradition that young Egyptians would do well to study and learn from the remnants of their great history. Let us not forget that Egypt was the cradle of civilization, a society that maintained continuous government for some three thousand years. In ancient times, the pharaoh served not only as an autocrat, in charge of virtually every aspect of society, but he also mediated between the gods and his people. In many cases, the pharaoh was a god. We witnessed this same sentiment in Mubarak's final speech in which he counseled his children to go home to their mothers. The reaction led to his resignation, a prescription that accords with an old expression, "the king must die in order for the son to be born."

History tells us that the radical pharaoh Akhenaton sought to change some 1300 years of tradition by suddenly redefining the king's role. He simultaneously elevated the value of the individual and the family while essentially demoting all their gods, save one. Aten, the sun god, was installed as the one and only god above all others. This radical change hinted at the beginning of monotheism in a land that had practiced polytheism for thousands of years. This was not just a conceptual shift, but one that basically dismissed familiar gods and long held religious customs. It's easy enough to decree a change, but to win the hearts and minds of people requires a time of adjustment and voluntary accommodation.

Even while granting greater personal freedoms, ones never before enjoyed by common Egyptians, Akhenaten's reign was met with ambivalence, suspicion and ultimately, sabotage. It was as if god had released the people from bondage, but rather than jubilation, people were disoriented; they missed their traditions, their old way of life, the old gods. Not having taken the time to slowly introduce a revised mythology that allowed people to gradually accept this new concept of individual freedom, Akhenaten's experiment failed miserably. His reign lasted only seventeen years and was quickly dismantled following his death. Still, the seeds of individual freedom had been lodged in the collective psyche and after many thousands of years they are beginning to bloom.

What follows is an excerpt from my latest book, Embodying Osiris, that describes the psychology of revolution/evolution that took place some 4000 years ago. Myth and history offer lessons to those in Tahrir Square. Penning longed-for freedoms on a piece of cardboard amidst the surrounding revolt certainly inspires and ignites the passions of a suppressed people. But it is much more difficult to integrate these reforms and create institutions that will maintain them.  For all those well intended people in that tent each has his or her own agenda -- a diversity that must ultimately reckon with the paradox of the One and the Many. A new narrative is required, one that speaks to the people in their own diverse language; a language that has a common voice. While the victory of revolution is awe-inspiring, it creates an inflation that blinds its freedom fighters to the potential consequences of rapid change.

Egypt, being a model for the Middle East, needs wise leaders who understand the dynamics of cultural transition. These are special people who know the old myths. They know why, for instance, Seth -- that fiery militant god whose claim to Osiris' throne was rejected -- was never killed. In the matrix of good governance both Seth and the civil minded Horus are needed. Each has his place at the table; strength and deliberation must be balanced. Otherwise, for all the excitement that the overthrow of the old guard (god) has brought, chaos rather than democracy may follow. The Middle East is at a tipping point where patience, good leadership and insight into lessons learned from myth and history can tilt the scales in a favorable direction.

 

The new mythology that sprang up with Akhenaten's reign maintained that both living and dead simply sank into sleep each night and awakened to the rays of the morning sun. In future, it was to be Aten, and sometimes Akhenaten, to whom the living and dead would turn in prayer and adulation, since the king and his god had become their eternal caretaker. This revolutionary change had a disquieting effect on the people, and, for the most part, Akhenaten's effort essentially failed. His failure was due in large part to the fact that his mythology was incomplete.

As we now know, individuation is a process founded upon integrating light and shadow, Self and ego, Osiris and Seth. "The concept of an all-encompassing God must necessarily include his opposite," writes Jung, "the principle of the coincidence of opposites must therefore be completed by that of absolute opposition in order to attain full paradoxicality and hence psychological validity." In this case, Self, in the form of Aten, was given sole authority. Had Akhenaten figured the dark gods, like Osiris, more prominently into his mythology it may have gained greater acceptance. Although Akhenaten's reign lasted only seventeen years and old traditions were quickly restored following his death, it had, I believe, a lasting effect on the Egyptian psyche.

In Aldred's view, Akhenaten's "creed reveals an attempt to rationalize beliefs that had developed accretions from prehistoric times. It sought to establish the relationship of the dead with the living, and mankind and all the natural world with a unique, invisible and self-created god." Rationalized beliefs were a modern concept that not only contradicted the common belief in many gods, but now also called for individuals to think for themselves. Gone was the underworld where the weight of one's soul determined a person's fate. With Akhenaten we have the first stirrings of conscience and with it the need for redemption. This complexity came by proclamation, not through the gradual introduction of a new mythological narrative. Aten was singled out as the ultimate celestial authority, and all other gods were reduced in importance. Akhenaten took a bold step that theologians before him had avoided: he declared the existence of one true God. The Egyptians, says Siegfried Morenz, "avoided liquidating individual gods but did not remain content with building up a hierarchical pantheon; they boldly went on to advance the theory that behind the plurality of gods there was a basic unity." Akhenaten named this unity Aten.

People were simply not prepared to make the leap, although surely some blindly accepted Akhenaten, while others tolerated him and still others feigned allegiance for monetary gain. Soon after the king's death came a flurry of rededications aimed at reviving the old order. But a process had begun that could not be changed. Today, we would refer to it as the individuation process, which holds that in every man, woman, and child is an instinctive urge toward the growth of individuality. No longer was assurance of physical survival and evolution enough, for henceforth an unconscious process of involution had seeded itself in the human psyche. A new dimension of personal, psychological depth was added to the ancient eschatology of the Old Kingdom. With Akhenaten, no longer was the world a mass of selfobjects, but instead the possibility of an individual psyche emerged, one that was private and separate from the collective, consisting of a conscious and unconscious domain.

. . .

I further contend that a critical evolution in cognitive development, a gradual shift from concrete to abstract thought, explains the emergence of an individual psyche. In alchemical language, abstract cognition is the separatio that allowed Akhenaten to isolate the one god from the many. This kind of sophisticated symbolic thinking was far more than the average Egyptian was used to. While the populous feared that many thousands of other gods would perish, the truth is that this radical change represented an introjection of the gods into the unconscious. In fact, they did not die; instead, a long process began in which external gods transformed into interior archetypes. In a sense, the old gods, like Osiris, had resurrected.

Many thousands of years would pass before the Osiris myth evolved to the point that people came to understand the gods of the Ennead as psychological entities rather than immortal deities. This shift in consciousness began, I believe, with the fall of Akhenaten. Thereafter, the Book of the Dead was no longer a guidebook meant strictly to serve the deceased, but slowly became an instruction manual for the living. To be sure, the myth of Osiris was never a static document, but rather changed according to political necessity and, over the course of many thousands of years, responded to the psychological exigencies of the collective unconscious. In the earliest times, Osiris was a common god, as were all the gods of the Ennead. He was the god of the dead; Horus the Elder, the herald of creation; Seth, god of storms and thunder; and Isis, an aspect of the Great Mother. But, since individuation involves movement from simplicity to forms of ever-greater complexity, these gods could no longer maintain their singular place in the Egyptian pantheon. The simple merging of gods was not sufficient symbolically to convey the complexity emerging in the development of consciousness. For now, a shift was occurring that required a calculus of change separating the individual from the body politic. This shift involved a gradual redefinition of the person from one viewed as a function of something other than him- or herself to someone having all the vicissitudes of an inner world.

...

We are beholding mysteries that Egyptian priests worshipped and alchemists intuited. We are embodying the kind of divine consciousness that was formally possessed exclusively by pharaohs. The difference is that divine consciousness today is not mediated by heka [magic]; rather, it is accomplished through a combination of empathic engagement with the gods (archetypes) and advanced psychological processes. A whole new philosophy of embodiment has spawned areas of research that are shaping today's world.

Much of these contemporary advances stem from the history and mythology studied in this book. A wise old saying makes this point: "Yesterday's magic is tomorrow's science." And, in fact, magic played a crucial role in the radical transition from an unconscious collective to the gradual awakening of individual consciousness. Early Egyptians must have marveled at the transformations appearing in plain view when wheat and barley were changed into bread and the juice of the vine into a spiritual elixir. This magic depended less on a god's favor than on the knowledge one possessed in the kitchen. Channeling the Nile's floodwaters, irrigating the soil, stockpiling seed, and strategic harvesting, all seemingly simple tasks, were actions that replaced magical commands with a practical means of marshalling nature's power.

Osiris and Isis taught people how to use the Nile to cultivate their fields. This knowledge marked a significant advancement in the development of consciousness. For with the means of producing one's own food, the gods weren't something out there that came of their own will and in their own time to provide for the people. What had been a divine power was now, to some extent, in the hands of farmers, bakers, and cooks. With self-sufficiency, people were less dependent on the state; filled storehouses established a healthy market for trade and commerce. At the same time, one's spiritual destiny was no longer a function of the pharaoh, but rather every person had direct access to God (Aten) -- a major change in how his or her fate in the afterlife would be determined.

As a result, the great gods became increasingly more abstract and their role in this alchemical process more important. Osiris had been a god of the dead, but he now represents the god of change and becoming -- an alchemical god much in the likeness of Mercurius. Seth was no longer just the god of thunder and storms; he now becomes the nightly slayer of Apopis, the serpentine enemy of consciousness. Isis emerges not only as wife and sister, but also as mother and even as a creator goddess who re-members and animates her dead husband. Horus the Elder appears to merge with the younger Horus, together establishing a vital new order on earth. Horus comes to represent the new man who rules with an earthly authority founded upon his father's sovereignty in the underworld. It is possible that the idea of the new man, the second Adam, derives from Horus, for in him we find the seminal traits elaborated much later by other groups: the Cabbalists with their concept of Adam Kadmon, the Gnostics with their doctrine of the Anthropos, and the alchemists with their filius philosophorum, the first "man of light" -- Mercurius. More generally, what I am describing is the formation of a psychological world where gods become archetypes and the dark underworld, the earliest beginning of a personal unconscious.

Had Jung pursued his research in this area further, he would not only have found evidence to support his theory of individuation, but would certainly have discovered the earliest structuring of the human psyche. With his genius, he certainly might have provided encyclopedic evidence that Ra is the personification of the Self. No doubt he would have gone further and found Horus to be the prototype for the ego archetype and Seth, the shadow archetype. Osiris would prove to be the prima materia that transforms from a passive, undifferentiated state to a perfected image of the philosopher's stone. While Jung relied principally on medieval alchemy, I believe he might more profitably have turned to ancient Egypt where the Royal Art was born and cultivated. Consciousness is a continuous process of unfolding, punctuated by dislocations and reunions; the Osiris myth marks many of the key points in this evolution. Indeed, it is a priceless alchemical myth of existence given to us by nature and sculpted by humankind.

 

Image by quinnanya, courtesy of Creative Coomons license.

Comments

Ra

While I follow the intent of this article, and understand the thought presented, also know that this is from a book that I would be glad to read, I wonder why Jung did not take the step this thought offers.If I had all the facts before me, if I was a Jung scholar, and a avid reader of all things Egyptian, I might be better able to comment on the above(above so below?).As it is my knowledge of Jung is sketchy and my readings of things Egyptian although I have always been interested and drawn to it, and have done my share of it, are at best also rather sparse.Having said that, I will nevertheless attempt a jab at some thinking on this topic at hand.As far as the whole God, Gods thing that Egypt represents, we are at once so confronted with shear mystery, that any attempts at reconciling them in the light of postmodern thought, as it were, still seems to be at best shooting in the dark, with a laser beam pointed at the heart of Osiris, at best still fraught with all the problems that are still ongoing with psychology, philosophy, and religion.While I nod in agreement at the ideas presented in this article, I still feel that all these ideas of psychology, all the nice terms, that have emerged since the deep mysterious past of Egypt, all the philosophy that rose from the debris of the ancient yesterday, and the subsequent psychology, is still(to use Jung's favorite word, shadow)...is still a pale shadow as seen through a transparent veil.Yes we can now say that what we see through the veil, because we know know it is transparent, because before we only knew that something was dimly perceived through the thin layer of mind stuff, we now have come to recognize that we are seeing bodies moving on the other side.Now we can say what was before concrete is now abstract, what was before only the initiation of the Pharaoh, is now internalized, and individualized.We can separate out certain words, terms, and differentiations of the before shrouded in dead language about the dead, or the other way of saying it, the coming forth by day. Let me see, If i get this right, we now place some kind of new language over the old language, because we now see what was really happening, in the light of having come forth by the light of day, see we actually use the old language to out benefit and we carry on some kind of dialogue with certain developments that have been pieced together from the ruins of antiquity, namely the Rosetta stone, and also extrapolations taken from the more recent history of the west, namely the artifact of mystery school made into a state philosophy that began the long process of bringing us to the state science.And in the most recent past we banged out a fabricated relic that we now dub psychology.Before we had such relics as Gnosticism and Alchemy, but the secret is let out of the bag and Schrodinger's cat is both alive and well, and also embalmed as a cat mummy, and running around freely in the Duat.Yes we have underworld, NASA.Yes we have collective unconscious.But i wonder if we have individuation.WE obviously have rupture, and we have rapture(not the fundie kind)and we have reverie, however but merely seeing know that the veil is transparent, where as before it was opaque, does not a working psychology make.Our understanding of the ancients is still vastly outnumbered by the complexity of time spans.Our attention span is only as good as our current systems of understanding.How far back does it go? when did the Zep Tepi ? How far forward does it go? what happened in the middle of the initiation of great Pharaoh? Can we hear the sound that the greatest of all pharaohs of all heard in his head when the opening of the way arrived at the boat of a million years? Was he thinking Freud and Jung? Was he seeing the whole universe create it self out of the vast sands of stars? Was he juggling colored balls of light? And we have lift off.And we have shadow governments. And we have a revolution in modern day Egypt, but who or what will carry out the revolution of the absolute? Well lets play a old game of counters, with Horus and Set.Lets begin where we came it, and the Shadow knows what good and evil lurks in the hearts of humankind.Time to unwind, the clock is ticking backwards, but where does the 2012 meet the year zero? Where does Jung and Freud not make the population bomb.And Nietzsche see only a great god Pan, pan with oil in it, not black gold, but Osiris is a black god.And the riddle of the Sphinx is congruent with the quantum cat and the fiddle, and Cheshire smiles out of the deepest cryptic vaults of our imagination, and the word the Pharaoh hears at the moment of eternal awakening is now.

Lifting the veil

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. “The most difficult obstacle in unraveling he secrets of ancient Egypt is acknowledging the possibility that we might never know what these people were really thinking.“ I think this sentence, the first in my book, speaks to your main point, namely, that ancient Egypt is shrouded in mystery and that no amount of science can unlock its secrets. Yet, without Jung having dragged alchemy into the sphere of psychology, it would have remained a “relic” left in the hands of people who do not appreciate the language of symbols. And so it is with this ancient myth of Osiris. It is at best naive and worse, arrogant, to delve into a myth without appreciating the history, beliefs and psychology of its authors. This is precisely the approach I’ve taken: to identify specific “adjustments” that are necessary to understand and "empathically engage" this amazing myth on its own terms. Certainly, Osiris is and will remain a mystery but that does not mean we cannot venerate him by close study to what he meant to the ancient Egyptians and to us today.

Hello Thom, Can you please

Hello Thom,

Can you please remind me of the person who spoke this line?

“The most difficult obstacle in unraveling he secrets of ancient Egypt is acknowledging the possibility that we might never know what these people were really thinking.“

literature

The most difficult obstacle

Dear Literature,

This is the first line from my book, Embodying Osiris." Hoping it whets your appetite to 

read more...

Best regards,

Thom Cavalli

 

 

Myth and psyche

 

I enjoyed this article, thanks very much. I actually saw Horus and Set dropping what they were doing and looking up at Ra in complete shock, as if to say "Whoa! Can he see us right now?" I always love seeing mythology used as psychological metaphor, which Jung, Campbell, and Wilson proved to be the case. My own mental life constantly craves a coherent structure in order to grok itself, a meaningful conceptual overlay based on a balance of fact and fiction. One could call that the will of the ego to create the world in its own image, but one's mind simply cannot function without a conceptual overlay, and myths are made for the job. This view is the most accurate and effective bridge for bringing back the power of myth into general psychological knowledge and practice.

Preferring, perhaps nostalgically, the mystical terminology of ancient metaphysics over our modern, agreed upon, and theoretically useful language of science and psychology is missing the point entirely. The same goes vice versa; myth and mysticism are as important as ever. It's all about bringing the gods back to life in an integrative, shareable, and experiential way to settle the XXI siecle shitstorm of postmodern pop culture propaganda. An ecological pantheon of mythic perspectives for day to day life is what we need, for individuals, groups and worlds-- as long as everyone remembers that all myths are valid, some are more useful and beautiful, but none are in essence True. Egyptian mythology is wonderful, and I will look up the book.

 

main points

My writing style is like delving into the language, and experimenting with various perspectives, rather to the point, my influence in literature, poetry, but also attempting to somehow bring in the insights of philosophy, and psychology.And so without editing myself, I sort of just let it flow, by allowing as much of the main points to begin to release some collective unconscious content.Since my main thrust is not from the point of view of any specific psychological view point, as that is not my area of training of particular research most of my writing is going to go off in various directions, a lot of which may not bare on any actual concentration of main points.Having said that, I am glad for any response, which allows me to come back and look at what might have furthered my understanding of the contexts at hand.And here it is" the language of symbols" and also the deep mystery represented. And the fact that it was Jung that "dragged alchemy into the sphere of psychology".As we know that the word originally came from Egypt.The Land of Khem.At this juncture, I wonder how much of Jung's study of alchemy and its symbols has actually developed and transformed current manifestations in the realm of practical psychology.And I also wonder if we use certain terms, like individuation to describe what whole be called evolution in thinking in this area, and how that would resonate with the thinking about alchemical type practice in ancient Egypt.What I am saying is, is the current thought in this regard still to relegate the practice and thought of ancient Egypt to some primitive "concrete" mode and current thought as the more "abstract" advanced mode.In other words did Jung initiate a revolution in psychology that just now being able to see that psychology is just another way of saying alchemy of the mind, which in turn is another way of saying that the ancient Egyptians had arrived at some eternal mode that transcends any Epoch, or Zeitgeist, or specific school of thought that struggles for acceptance in any given sphere of psychology, that because of Jung we have passed that point of eternal return, to use Nietzsche's phrase, and that now the mystery of Osiris can be understood to be not just some primitive celebration ritual based on cycles of the rise and fall of the Nile, but also held greater meaning on various other levels of the human psyche, that are just as meaningful then as they are now, in the light of psychology since Jung and what follows.Is there a turning point to the main points, or at this point in human evolution are we still just discussing A B C all be it with a lot of colorful diagrams, and some really interesting alchemical symbolism to point to.It seems to me that we are at once confronted with alchemical symbolism and ancient Egypt, ect. and also we are in a thousand different camps of thought that vie for attention at any given main point.It is difficult for me to shape my thought to fit a main point, other then to shape around it.As much as I feel drawn to that veil of mystery and the wonders it holds, i feel that there is some deeper mystery yet still lies at its center, and when i think science the poet in me stands in the middle of the past and the future and cannot go either way.As science seems to be either about space migration or about serving the interests of arcane corporations.Thus we go full circle, and without getting out my copy of Mysterium Coniunctionis,(I jest) I wonder too if Freud was a great pessimist and Jung the great optimist, then Jung the yin to Freud's yang? And did Jung think the collective unconscious was different then all that use of mythology in Freud, or was it building upon it, or was it somehow ancient Egypt breaking through his own subconscious types, and he fell upon medieval alchemy because of that mysterious breakthrough. anyway , thank you, i should read your book.

A mystery worth studying

Jung is difficult to read precisely because he circumnavigated his subject of inquiry, provided endless references and "gave voice" to his unconscious. Many of his followers should be credited with translating his ideas into a more accessible narrative. Still, Jung surpassed Freud in his willingness to go far beyond a basically biological concept of mind. The Collective Unconscious, for example, is much more than a bundle of mythologies; rather, it is an active construct integral to the psyche and its functioning. Jung opened doors to areas of research that continue to prove fruitful to those who dare venture into perplexing mind-body phenomena. Despite his importance, Jung has been more embraced by the public than mainstream psychology. Perhaps this is a good thing, for it maintains the mystery that cannot ever give itself over to objective analysis. (I welcome your interest in reading my book. It elaborates and answers much of the thoughts you are so generously sharing.)

Egyptian Mysticism

This short video below {17 min} uses Sacred Geometry to give hints of many connected mystical traditions, with specific hints of Egyptian thought throughout.

Beautiful, intriguing, and trippy ... it repeats three times {51 minutes total} ... the first two have different narrations ... the third run is silent ... 17 minutes each ... video is the same in all three.

Watch it like a moving meditation or mandala .. lots of connecting points .. the first narration is probably the most descriptive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV8e8-pw5Fc

"Wonder is what Mystery would do if it was conscious" ...

"Wandering is for every other possibility"

Pippalayana Muni

The First Gods

Thank you Pippalayana for the recommendation. I will certainly view the videos. The ancient Egyptians were certainly expert in their understanding of Number, both symbolically and in practical application. I've included some comments about this interest in my book, pointing out that numbers were, according to Jungian theory, the first gods with "2" being the first number. Also, as I write, the Egyptians meditations "on the basic symmetrical geometric solids produced healing effects." By the way, I love the quotes you added!

Thanks

Thank you very much for sharing this article. I actually saw Horus and Set dropping what they were doing and looking up at Ra in complete shock, as if to say "Whoa! Can he see us right now?" I always love seeing mythology used as psychological metaphor, which Jung, Wilson proved to be the case. Bad Credit Home Equity

All Seeing Ra

Ra, the supreme Sun god, is omniscient and was therefore fully aware of the 80 year waged between Horus and Set. Glad you enjoyed the excerpt and I pray that the revolution in Egypt is truly transformative!