The Bull of Ombos (share your feedback)

Hello Mogg,

Many thanks. Received your books today. Always interested in the deep & wide-ranging work you present.Although I have great respect for your viewpoint, I have reservations about the "central role" that is being given to Seth by yourself & some other authorities. Of course, this is the revival of an ancient argument - within the multi-dimentional world of the ancient Egyptian's belief-systems there was much paradox & contradiction, all of which to our modern & more dogmatic age is still somewhat inexplicable - therefore your viewpoint is quite acceptable, as are others, such as Ptah as the Heart & Tongue of the Gods , or of Neith, Weaving the Universe. If later Egyptian history could be discounted & the psychological importance of Horus as the Pharaonic paradigm could be set aside, then the very importance of the "Sethian Fire" being cast in the role of Shadow & Enemy could perhaps be discounted. Yet who are we to be able to do this? These Neters or divine personas all play their part in a great Cosmic Drama. Thanks for sharing your ideas with us & forgive these words, if they seem critical, for this was not my intention. The subtlety of ancient Egyptian thought which has been my life's study, is all I seek to affirm. - JS


Dear JS - its refreshing to get some feedback - there is always an element of distortion whenever one takes a point of view - i'm not really meaning to minimise the role of the other gods - merely to discuss Seth - who is a little neglected - especially in relation to magick -and in the process to throw a light upon some unusual aspects of his cult - even in ancient Egypt there must have been those who were out of step with the main thrust of Egyptian religion if only because, by accident of birth, or whatever - they find themselves custodians of the cult shrines of that god.

Yes I agree Egyptian thought is not one monolithic whole - there are several trends - I’ve been reading jeremy naydler's new book 'shamanism and the pyramid texts' where he tackles the vexed question of the invisibility of any supposed 'Egyptian wisdom' or 'mystery'. He is criticising, from the perspective of phenomenology of religion, those specialists who say the Egyptians were practical people - not given to introspection - where all this religion stuff is shunted off for some time after death -

In my book I discuss the way in which ‘the dead’ are ‘used’ for the benefit of living. And I wonder whether this might not be further support for the Naydler’s thesis concerning an Egyptian mystery cult – in that it shows how the living think and use magick to benefit their own lives, whilst still living and how this involves a transaction with the dead and the ancestors.