Category Archives: Shu

Is your sacred image of Isis “alive”?

If so, how did that happen?

Did you do a specific ritual? Did it slowly gain its living quality over time?

Following the inspirations of ancient Egyptian cult, for me, the ones that are alive are so because of ritual. I’ve used versions of “Enlivening the Divine Image” from Isis Magic on several of them. But my main image—my BIG Isis—was enlivened long before Isis Magic existed.

To enliven Her, I invited a circle of friends to come over for an Isis birthday party. There was ritual around everything, of course, but the main event was that each participant cradled the image in their arms, as if holding a baby, and breathed their living breath into the sacred image…then passed Her to the next person. And it worked; She has been quite lively ever since.

But what exactly do I mean by “is alive,” anyway?

Let me give you an example. Several years ago, one of the traveling Egyptian museum shows came to our local museum and a group of us went. Of course, there were many wonderful things. But one image—smallish, broken, a head of Sakhmet in yellow alabaster—hummed with magical power. I felt Something in its presence. Mind you, not everything in the show felt like that. But this piece did. I think what I felt was the magic of the ritual that had “opened the mouth and eyes” of this sacred image of Sakhmet so that something of the Goddess was still within the image. The priests who worked that rite, those guys were good. This Sakhmet had power; it had life.

That’s what I want from my sacred images of Isis, too. When someone visits my Isis shrine, I hope they feel Something. A little buzz. A little hum. A little magic that says, “yes, I’m here.”

From the very start of the artistic process of making such a sacred image, the ancient Egyptians knew they were creating something that would be alive. Sculptors sometimes referred to their work as “giving birth.”

We are used to thinking of Egyptian statuary are gargantuan. But the main cult image in each temple—the one kept in the holy of holies and cared for each day—was likely no more than about a foot in height for anthropomorphic images. We know this due to the size of the shrines that enclosed these images. So this means that the size of the images many of us have on our own home altars are very much in harmony with the most important Egyptian temple images. I like that. A lot.

The oldest texts we have that provide information on what the ancients thought about their divine images come from the New Kingdom (1570-1069 BCE), but the ideas in them are likely much older. We find this information in ritual texts for the Daily Ritual, which cared for and fed the Deity and the Opening of the Mouth rite used to enliven the images, as well as some additional temple texts that mention the relationship between the Deities and Their images.

At core, what these texts make apparent is that some part of the essence of the Deity was considered to be alive in the sacred image. In the Daily Ritual, the sacred image is awakened, clothed, praised, and anointed as a living being. Each step in the ritual re-enlivens the statue each time the ritual is performed. Toward the end of the rite, the priest can finally say to the Deity in the image, “oh living ba who smites His enemies, Your ba is with You and Your sekhem is with You.” In this case, the ba of the Deity is Their manifestation (ba also has connotations of power) and sekhem is the word for power. The priest then says that he, too, is a ba and embraces the sacred image.

So at this point, the ba of the Deity is in the image. Ba is a complicated term and I won’t go into all its complications here. (Besides, I’m still learning about some of them.) For our purposes here, we can think of the ba of a Deity as Their Presence or Manifestation. In this way, the sacred image of the Deity IS the outward manifestation of the Deity. But that’s not all that it is. For we have other texts that tell us that the ba of the Deity swoops down like a great hawk to alight upon the image and indwell it.

But back to the Daily Ritual…

Next, food is presented and now the emphasis shifts to the ka of the Deity. The ritual says that Ma’et embraces the Deity “so that your ka will exist through Her.” The simplest definition for ka is “vital essence;” it’s the difference between alive and dead. And since I am, at this moment, into simplification, we’ll let that do for now.

The hieroglyph for the word ka is two upraised arms, perhaps intended to be read as an embrace. For it is through an embrace that ka may be passed, for example, from Atum to His children Shu and Tefnut to protect Them and give Them Their kas. The royal ka—the ancestral power that makes the pharaoh a pharaoh—is passed by an embrace from the old king as Osiris to his heir as Horus.

So we have two aspects of the Deity present in the sacred image during the Daily Rituals: ba and ka. The ba is the Presence and the ka is Life. It is through the ka that the Deity Who is alive in the sacred image receives offerings. You can read more about that here.

These sacred images were taken out in procession during certain festivals. On such occasions, the Deity would also be present in the image—present enough to give oracular responses, and we even have one instance of a man claiming that he was cured of blindness during such a procession. Unfortunately, we don’t have texts of any of the rituals that might re-enliven or “charge up” the image before going out, but we know they existed because the library at Edfu was supposed to contain a book of “all ritual relating to the exodus of the God from His temple on feast days.”

From another temple text, we know that the Opening of the Mouth ritual was performed on statues. The full name of the text is “Performing the Opening of the Mouth in the workshop for the statue (tut) of (Name of person or Deity).” The key part of that ritual was known as netjerty, when the mouth of the image was touched with the adze, a specific craftsman’s tool. Netjerty is formed from the root Netjer (also Nutjer, Neter)—Deity—so we can understand that this part of the rite was a god-ifying part. Much of the rest of the ritual is very similar to the Daily Ritual and its magic, with both ba and ka present.

Other than these references in the Daily Ritual and Opening of the Mouth, there are a few scattered references about the relationship between Deity and image. In the Hibis temple of Amun-Re, all the other Deities are considered aspects of Him as Creator. And, as Creator, He is also the one Who creates His own image. He made it “according to His desire, He having graced it with the grace of His breath…” In the Daily Ritual text that we have for Amun, He is said to be “the tut Who made Their [all the Deities] kas.”

In several similar passages, the creation of the sacred image is attributed to the Deity Who’s image it was. This reminds me of why all the books of Egypt could be said to have been written by Thoth: the scribe, in the act of writing, is in the Godform of Thoth, so the book is written by Thoth. Perhaps the sculptors and artists were supposed to be in the Deityform of the Deity they were sculpting, too. I am imagining an artist, in the Goddessform of Isis, crafting Her image by channeling inspiration from Her.

In what is known as the Memphite Theology, Ptah the Craftsman is the Creator and He creates the bodies—statues—of all the Deities according to Their desire, so that They willingly “enter into” Their bodies and Their kas are satisfied.

At Isis’ temple at Philae, a text says that Isis’ son Horus is the one who established all the temples and made all the sacred images. Horus and Hathor were known to “go out as Their statues” during one of Their festivals. Edfu temple also has passages that say the Deities “unite with Their bas in the horizon—the akhet, that most liminal of liminal places and a very reasonable place to work this transitional magic.

From these and similar clues, we can be sure that a Deity’s ba and ka were understood to be present in Their sacred images. What’s more, Their presence in one temple neither precluded nor diminished Their presence or power in another. Both ka and ba are in divinely infinite supply.

Thus Isis can be alive and present in my shine, on your altar, and on the altars and in the shrines of all those who love Her.

May She bless and be alive in your sacred image always.

Isis & the Soul

What is your concept of the soul?

It’s one of those things that we often talk about, but we don’t have a firm definition of what—exactly—it is. Is it the divine part of ourselves? Is it the immortal part that survives after death? Is it some kind of “essence” of ourselves? Is it our inner life, our thoughts, feelings, passions? Do only human beings have one, or do other beings and things have one, too? Is it what animates us, what makes us alive? In Latin, the word for soul is anima and modern languages like French and Spanish have words for soul (âme and alma) that come directly from Latin.

The English word derives from Old English sawol and is related to a number of similar old-European words. Psychology, the study of the psyche—Greek for soul—thus involves the study (or literally, “speaking about,” –ology) the soul. So psychologists and psychotherapists are concerned with healing the soul.

Most people, throughout the world, have some sort of concept of something like the soul. Yes, of course, the ancient Egyptians did, too. And yes, of course, Our Lady Isis has an intimate concern with souls.

Those of you who have been reading this blog probably already know that the ancient Egyptians did things a little differently. And you may already know that they had a broader concept of what goes into making up the full nature of the human being. These are words like ka, ba, akh, khat, ren, ib, and shadow. We find these terms numbering from about five on the low end to about sixteen on the high end. Often, you will see them referred to as “components” or “parts” of the human being, both in life and afterlife. That’s not quite right, so more-modern scholars will call them “aspects” of the human being. This is much closer.

The ba-bird and the shadow of the deceased

But I just learned today, that there is an Egyptian word that is not only appropriate and which at least some learned Egyptians seem to have used as the collective term for these aspects. The word is kheperu.* It means “forms, transformations, manifestations” and oh-so-much more. It is found in the name of the Sun Scarab God, Khepri or Khepera. As a verb, it means “changing, transforming, becoming.” The root also has to do with creation, birth, and rebirth.

What I learned is that in some examples of the funerary literature, you will see a list of the familiar aspects of the human being, but with the word kheperu at the end. Scholars think that the word kheperu—transformations—at the end was meant to sum up all the preceding aspects. Why is this important? Because it confirms that the kheperu of a person should not be understood as discreet or disjointed “parts” of the human being. But rather that the ancients understood them to be forms or ways of being that the human being could transform into during different aspects of their life/afterlife journey.

Today, I’d like to focus on just one of these kheperu: the ba.

The ba hovers over the body of its deceased

We have come to use the word “soul” to translate ba because way back in the 4th century CE, a writer name Horapollo (a perfect Egypto-Greek name if ever there was one) so translated it. Horapollo was a Greco-Egyptian intellectual who wrote a book, in Greek, on the meanings of the hieroglyphs. In addition to giving us the ba = psyche equation, Horapollo also connected the ba with the heart, for, he said, the Egyptians say that the soul resides in the heart.

Here’s Horapollo’s entry on The Soul:

That the hawk is a symbol for the soul is clear from the interpretation of its name. For the hawk is called by the Egyptians Baieth. If this name is divided, it means “soul” and “heart.” For Bai is the soul and Eth is the heart. And the heart, according to the Egyptians, contains the soul. Hence the interpretation of the combined name is the “soul in the heart.” Wherefore the hawk, since it has the same character as the soul, never drinks water, but blood, on which the soul is nourished.

The Hierogliphics, Book I, entry on The Soul

We may also note that in Book II of Horapollo, the symbol for the human soul is a star—as well as a symbol for a Deity, twilight, night, and time, all of which is true enough. Remember that by the 4th century CE, a lot of the traditional knowledge about the sacred writing had been lost. So it’s likely that what Horapollo reports is what was current in his day.

The ba of Shu fills the sail of the deceased with the breath of life

Ba is an extremely complicated concept in ancient Egypt (and don’t get me started on ka!) Like so many other things, it too, changed over the millennia. Scholars are still trying to figure out precisely what it meant. But happily, we do know some things, so we’re not completely in the dark.

In the earliest Egyptian texts, the ba appears to be a Divine force. The word seems to refer to a manifested spirit, usually the manifestation of a Deity. The ba of a Deity could appear as a natural force—the wind is the ba of Shu—or in the form of a sacred animal. For instance, the Apis bull of Memphis was considered the ba of, first Ptah, then Osiris; the Hesis cow, mother of the Apis, was considered the ba of Isis. What’s more, one Deity could be the ba of another. Osiris and Heka are bas of Re; Sothis is the ba of Isis. By the end of the Old Kingdom, the concept of the ba was understood more broadly. Everybody—and some things as well—had one. Post Amarna, every Deity and everything could be considered a ba of Amun/Amun-Re.

The ba of the deceased perched on a papyrus plant; Ptolemaic era

When it comes to human beings, generally, the ba was thought to be a non-physical aspect of a person that comprised their personality or character. The impression one makes on others is because of the nature of one’s ba. The ba is also a form or manifestation—a kheper—of the human being in the spiritual realm. After death, a human being’s ba could take on super-human power; not as powerful as a Deity’s, but powerful.

In tombs, the ba of the deceased person is usually shown as a human-headed bird, often a hawk like Horapollo says. Sometimes the ba-bird also has human arms and hands. With it’s human face, it is linked to the individual human being and reflects the personality or character of the person. Yet its birdform gives it the ability to move between the worlds. And because it can enter into the spirit world, it knows things beyond normal human knowledge. Thus it can also serve as a counselor to human beings while we are still alive. We have a piece of ancient literature in which a man is in a dispute with his ba over whether or not he should commit suicide. Egyptian wisdom literature also advised people to do good in life in order to feed their bas.

A man and his ba greet and mirror each other in the underworld

Well. I see that this post has gotten a bit long and I haven’t even brought in Isis, She Who “guides my soul on the paths of the Netherworld.” So we’ll continue this soulful discussion next time and learn the may ways that Isis is connected with the powerful ba.

* In Isis Magic, I use the term Kheperu for the various forms of the Deities as well as the magical technique of “Taking on the God/dessform.”

The Great Mother, Her Mother, and Her Mother’s Mother

Isis the Mother and Her Holy Child Horus
Isis the Mother

A friend of this blog asked a very interesting question. She asked how we can reconcile the idea that Isis is both Mother of All with the idea that Isis has a mother Herself. It’s a question I’ve been wanting to work on ever since it was asked, so with this post I’m finally getting around to it.

It’s a very interesting question because it has to do with our conception of the nature of the Divine and Divine Beings in general.

So how do we start to look at this?

For me, history is always a good place to begin. It gives us a useful foothold to know what our ancestors thought about these things; after all, when it comes to Divinity and Divine Beings, we human beings have been thinking about this for a very long time indeed.

Atum arises from the Nun, the primordial waters of No-Thing-Ness
Atum arises from the Nun, the primordial waters of No-Thing-Ness

Erik Hornung’s Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt, the One and the Many is a key text for understanding the nature of the Divine in terms of ancient Egypt. Hornung writes that the Egyptians had a multiplicity of approaches to the Divine and only when taken together can we see the whole picture. For them, he says, everything came from One because the non-existent is One, Undifferentiated Thing. Once something becomes existent, it also becomes multiple.

We see this in the Heliopolitan myth in which Atum comes forth from the Nun, the non-existent, the inert, and immediately begins generating other Deities through an act of masturbation: first Shu and Tefnut, Who beget Nuet and Geb, Who beget Isis, Osiris, Set, and Nephthys.

And so we meet Isis, Her mother Nuet, and Her mother’s mother Tefnut. And there may even be a great grandmother present, for when Atum came into existence, He was both masculine and feminine; His “shadow” or “hand” (the one He used to masturbate) is the Goddess Iusaaset or Iusâas Who is said to be the Grandmother of all the Gods.

The Ennead of Heliopolis
The Ennead of Heliopolis

Another important characteristic of the Divine in ancient Egypt is Its fluidity. Hornung says of the Egyptian Deities, “They are formulas rather than forms, and in their world, one is sometimes as if displaced into the world of elementary particles.” Deities may be combined with one another or split off from one another; one Deity can be the ba or soul of another; They can even be assimilated with foreign Deities without losing Their essence. “But wherever one turns to the divine in worship, addresses it and tends to it in cult” Hornung writes, “it appears as a single, well-defined figure that can for a moment unite all divinity within itself and does not share it with any other god.”

Isis protected by the Vulture Mother
Mother Isis, nursing Horus and protected by the Vulture Mother

The primordiality of Isis is attested on the Great Pylon of Her graceful temple at Philæ. The Ptolemaic passage states that Isis “is the one who was in the beginning; the one who first came into existence on earth.” In the Coffin Texts, Isis is invoked with a group of Deities considered to be the most ancient: “O Re, Atum, Nu, Old One, Isis the Divine…” (Formula 1140). She is called Great Goddess Existing from the Beginning, Great One Who Initiated Existence, and Great One Who Is From the Beginning. Her very name, Iset or Throne, speaks to Her ancient nature.

By the time of the New Kingdom, Isis is routinely called Mother of All the Gods. Then, with Her worship spreading throughout the Mediterranean and beyond, Apuleius can write that Isis “brings the sweet love of a mother to the trials of the unfortunate,” while a Latin dedicatory inscription sums up Her all-encompassing nature: Tibi, Una Quae es Omnia, Dea Isis, “Unto Thee, the One Who art All, Goddess Isis.”

So now we have ancient attestations both of Isis’ primordiality and of Her generation from Her parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. How do we resolve it?

Which came first?
Which came first? It’s a paradox.

If we are among those who are uncomfortable with paradox, I’m afraid there may be no satisfying reconciliation between these two ideas. If it has been deeply ingrained that there can only be one right answer—especially when it comes to spiritual questions—then it may seem impossible for both these things to be true. After all, they contradict each other. At the very least, we should be able to pick one as the “right” answer. At the very most, we may decide the contradiction means both things must be false.

And yet we have already seen that, at least to the ancient worshippers of Isis, both things were indeed true.

This is what paradox is; and religion is absolutely rife with it. Why? Because most religions, or spiritualities if you prefer, involve Mystery. Mystery is at the very core of the Divine and paradox is one of Its favorite languages. Yet this is not to say we should simply throw up our hands up and say, “Goddess works in mysterious ways” and quit thinking about it.

Quite the opposite in fact. Paradox invites thought. It is intended to teach. So what can we learn from our paradox: Isis is Mother of All, yet She Herself has a mother?

Originally an illustration for a book of pseudo_Indian love poetry, this lovely illustration by Byam Shaw, 1914, captures something of Nuet and one of Her Holy Children
Originally an illustration for a book of pseudo-Indian love poetry called The Garden of Kama, this lovely illustration by Byam Shaw, 1914, captures something of Nuet caring for one of Her Holy Children

Let’s look at it through that ancient Egyptian lens that shows us a multiplicity of approaches to the Divine.

One way we can approach is as the Heliopolitan myth does: Isis is part of a Divine family. By being so, perhaps She is better able to understand human beings when we come to Her with our own familial problems. Her family relations make Her more suited to be a Soteira, a Savior Goddess, as She was known throughout the Mediterranean world.

We can also learn some important things about Isis through Her family relations. Isis is the daughter of Heaven (Nuet) and Earth (Geb). She is married to the Underworld God, Osiris, and is Herself a Goddess of the Underworld. Thus Isis is intimately connected to All That Is; She walks in all the Worlds.

Another approach to our paradox is through the fluidity of the Egyptian Deities that we talked about. If They can combine or split at will, or if one can become the ba of another, why can’t Isis be at once a Great Mother Herself and the daughter of a Great Mother?

Yet another approach is to open our hearts toward Isis in worship and experience Her for ourselves. Then, as Erik Hornung explained, Isis “appears as a single, well-defined figure that can for a moment unite all divinity” within Herself; She is the One Who is All, and She is the Mother of All.

By combining these approaches, and tolerating a little paradox, we learn more about Isis than we ever would have by restricting ourselves to a single position alone and Isis reveals Herself ever more as the Great Goddess She is.

Isis is all things and all things are Isis