Psychological Commentary on a Scene in the Egyptian Book of the Dead

[John Uebersax]

Here's a link to an online article I wrote recently that attempts a
depth-psychological interpretation of a scene from the Egyptian Book
of the Dead:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/anhai.htm

The basic hypothesis is that, beyond whatever traditional religious
meanings the Book of the Dead (Book of Coming Forth by Day) has, it
also carries meaning that relates to a positive transformation of
personal consciousness in the present life. Considered relative to
interior mental life this transformation can be understood as an
"ascent to the Higher Self". Considered relative to exterior life, it
corresponds to what might be called an "ascent to the here and now",
or achievement of a more existentially authentic mode relating to the
world.

While this article looks at just one scene, I suspect that a similar
level of analysis applied to other scenes, or perhaps the Book of the
Dead as a whole might be quite revealing.
--
John Uebersax PhD
Philosophy/Religion: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/religion.htm
Existential Psychology: http://members.aol.com/spiritualpsych/

[M Winther]

Post by John Uebersax
Here's a link to an online article I wrote recently that attempts a
depth-psychological interpretation of a scene from the Egyptian Book
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/anhai.htm
The basic hypothesis is that, beyond whatever traditional religious
meanings the Book of the Dead (Book of Coming Forth by Day) has, it
also carries meaning that relates to a positive transformation of
personal consciousness in the present life. Considered relative to
interior mental life this transformation can be understood as an
"ascent to the Higher Self". Considered relative to exterior life, it
corresponds to what might be called an "ascent to the here and now",
or achievement of a more existentially authentic mode relating to the
world.
While this article looks at just one scene, I suspect that a similar
level of analysis applied to other scenes, or perhaps the Book of the
Dead as a whole might be quite revealing.
--
John Uebersax PhD
Philosophy/Religion: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/religion.htm
Existential Psychology: http://members.aol.com/spiritualpsych/

It's a beautiful representation you have made there. In your
interpretation I get the feeling that you put too much emphasis on the
ego. At that historical level of consciousness, I'd argue, the ego in
its present form had not yet emerged. Therefore, to speak of an ego
consciousness that through contemplative exercises reaches a still
higher purified level of consciousness is unwarranted. Such a notion
speaks of *individual consciousness*, which was anathema in ancient
Egypt. The Egyptians were subject to a group consciousness, like
little children who obeyed they cosmic principles of Maat.

The gist of the judgement scene is that the deceased person *cannot*
be impure in the first place. While she has lived an unconscious life
according to Maat she could not have committed any sins. That's why
the deceased person denies all forms of impurity to the judge (the
negative confession). And this is the test by which she is accepted.
Had she developed a gramme of individual consciousness then she would
be aware of her sins. She proves herself worthy by the resemblance to
an unknowing child.

I'd argue that we cannot, in Anhai, have an impure ego consciousness.
This would be wholly out of line with ancient Egyptian tradition.
Their mythology served the purpose of maintaining a harmonious
childlike perspective, i.e., occluding the emergence of ego
consciousness in the first place.

Barbara Hannah actually discovered the first historical example of an
active imagination (she argues) in an ancient Egyptian manuscript
(The Dialogue of a World-Weary Man with his Ba) , which she interprets.
In this example we see the emergence of the individual ego, in that
the main character refrains from throwing himself in the Nile, which
was customary for any person having encountered personal problems.
The ability to carry personal problems heralded the arrival of the ego.
But this would mean that the ego admitted to its errors and, thus, the
person could not get past the Judge after death.

Mats Winther

[M Winther]

Post by M Winther

Post by John Uebersax
Here's a link to an online article I wrote recently that attempts a
depth-psychological interpretation of a scene from the Egyptian Book
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/anhai.htm
The basic hypothesis is that, beyond whatever traditional religious
meanings the Book of the Dead (Book of Coming Forth by Day) has, it
also carries meaning that relates to a positive transformation of
personal consciousness in the present life. Considered relative to
interior mental life this transformation can be understood as an
"ascent to the Higher Self". Considered relative to exterior life, it
corresponds to what might be called an "ascent to the here and now",
or achievement of a more existentially authentic mode relating to the
world.
While this article looks at just one scene, I suspect that a similar
level of analysis applied to other scenes, or perhaps the Book of the
Dead as a whole might be quite revealing.
--
John Uebersax PhD
Philosophy/Religion: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/religion.htm
Existential Psychology: http://members.aol.com/spiritualpsych/

It's a beautiful representation you have made there. In your
interpretation I get the feeling that you put too much emphasis on the
ego. At that historical level of consciousness, I'd argue, the ego in
its present form had not yet emerged. Therefore, to speak of an ego
consciousness that through contemplative exercises reaches a still
higher purified level of consciousness is unwarranted. Such a notion
speaks of *individual consciousness*, which was anathema in ancient
Egypt. The Egyptians were subject to a group consciousness, like
little children who obeyed they cosmic principles of Maat.
The gist of the judgement scene is that the deceased person *cannot*
be impure in the first place. While she has lived an unconscious life
according to Maat she could not have committed any sins. That's why
the deceased person denies all forms of impurity to the judge (the
negative confession). And this is the test by which she is accepted.
Had she developed a gramme of individual consciousness then she would
be aware of her sins. She proves herself worthy by the resemblance to
an unknowing child.
I'd argue that we cannot, in Anhai, have an impure ego consciousness.
This would be wholly out of line with ancient Egyptian tradition.
Their mythology served the purpose of maintaining a harmonious
childlike perspective, i.e., occluding the emergence of ego
consciousness in the first place.
Barbara Hannah actually discovered the first historical example of an
active imagination (she argues) in an ancient Egyptian manuscript
(The Dialogue of a World-Weary Man with his Ba) , which she interprets.
In this example we see the emergence of the individual ego, in that
the main character refrains from throwing himself in the Nile, which
was customary for any person having encountered personal problems.
The ability to carry personal problems heralded the arrival of the ego.
But this would mean that the ego admitted to its errors and, thus, the
person could not get past the Judge after death.
Mats Winther

So the notion of purifying the ego in meditative practices, to reach a
higher level of consciousness, is a modern man's path to liberation. It is
a great truth projected on an old text where it doesn't belong. To my mind,
there is nothing wrong in using the Book of the Dead as a *metaphor*
for one's own conceptions. But then it's necessary to acknowledge this,
i.e., that it's not the true interpretation of the ancient papyrus, it's merely put
to use in a metaphorical way.

The Freudians always use ancient myths in a metaphorical way. They think
the Narcissus myth exemplifies narcissistic pathology. Truth is that the
Narcissus myth isn't even remotely connected with narcissism. The
difference is that the Freudians don't understand that it's merely
metaphorical. They actually think that mythology is an ancient diagnostics
manual.

Mats Winther

[JTEM]

Post by M Winther
The Freudians always use ancient myths in a metaphorical
way. They think the Narcissus myth exemplifies
narcissistic pathology. Truth is that the Narcissus myth
isn't even remotely connected with narcissism. The
difference is that the Freudians don't understand that it's
merely metaphorical. They actually think that mythology
is an ancient diagnostics manual.

I started to respond to your first post, but then changed my
mind and hit "Discard." I didn't think it was worth it. But,
seeing how you're going to continue this exchange even if
it's one sided...

Current thought is that these "ancients" were fully formed
modern humans -- and not some archaic form or evolutionary
inferior species. It's not like we're made out of DNA now but
back then people were made out of wood.

Anyhow, what applies to us pretty much applies to the
ancients as well. Sure, their view of reality was a lot
different, but no different than your own would be if you had
been raised during those ancient times. As far as their
minds go, they operated no differently than our own do
today.

[M Winther]

Post by JTEM

Post by M Winther
The Freudians always use ancient myths in a metaphorical
way. They think the Narcissus myth exemplifies
narcissistic pathology. Truth is that the Narcissus myth
isn't even remotely connected with narcissism. The
difference is that the Freudians don't understand that it's
merely metaphorical. They actually think that mythology
is an ancient diagnostics manual.

I started to respond to your first post, but then changed my
mind and hit "Discard." I didn't think it was worth it. But,
seeing how you're going to continue this exchange even if
it's one sided...
Current thought is that these "ancients" were fully formed
modern humans -- and not some archaic form or evolutionary
inferior species. It's not like we're made out of DNA now but
back then people were made out of wood.
Anyhow, what applies to us pretty much applies to the
ancients as well. Sure, their view of reality was a lot
different, but no different than your own would be if you had
been raised during those ancient times. As far as their
minds go, they operated no differently than our own do
today.

It's not the question of genetical differences. Current thought in
Jungian psychology is that the average level of consciousness was
lower in ancient times. One of the Jungians who discuss this is
Erich Neumann in "The Origins and History of Consciousness" (1954).
http://books.google.com/books?id=gOJNLT4_yc8C&dq=&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fclient%3Dopera%26rls%3Dsv%26q%3Derich%2Bneumann%26sourceid%3Dopera%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2

Mats Winther

[John Uebersax]

Hi Mats and JTEM,

(please excuse typos)

The question of whether we differ from the ancients psychologically,
and, in particular, with respect to the structure and role of the ego,
is a very interesting question. It might make an excellent book.
Unfortunately, I have not done more than browse Neumann's famous book,
so I don't know how much he gets into these things.

One the one hand, it is very easy to think we are different. One
example that comes to mind is the gladitorial games of ancient Rome.
Such an institutional and popular acceptance of violence seems
completely foreign to modern ways of thinking. Yet, on the other
hand, less than two centuries ago, slavery was openly tolerated. And
even within the 21st century, genocide has been an issue.

Then again, we may read the works of ancient authors and easily
believe that they were superior.

My own view is that this is resolved by adopting a "statistical"
perspective on the subject. I believe that there are the same basic
personality types now and in antiquity, but that the distribution of
these type has changed. As Mats remarked, the average intelligence
may be higher now than before. That is one manifestation of this
shift in distributions.

But, for me, the important point is that, in antiquity, there were
some people with "modern" personality structures, and high levels of
consciousness. We might take as an example someone like Socrates. But
such people were rarer in those days. A certain "advanced
type" (playfully, let us call such a type a 'gnostic') might have been
represented in the population as 1 in 10,000 in ancient times; but now
this type is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100. That is the idea.

Along with this, there is a selection bias in terms of those
individuals whose ideas have come to us in modern times. The
preserved writings, for example, likely reflect these 1 in 10,0000
individuals; therefore we can easily mistakenly conclude that the
ancients were superior to the average person today, but that is likely
not the case.

To return to the present subject, the Egyptian Book of the Dead
(EBOD), one my suggest that the core mythos represented in the
iconagraphy and the inscriptions was largely a product of the priestly
class, the hierophants, the 'gnostics.' Therefore it seems quite
plausible to me to consider the possibility that, latent within the
symbolism, are ideas that relate to a mystical ascent.

--
John Uebersax

Post by M Winther
It's not the question of genetical differences. Current thought in
Jungian psychology is that the average level of consciousness was
lower in ancient times. One of the Jungians who discuss this is
Erich Neumann in "The Origins and History of Consciousness" (1954).
http://books.google.com/books?id=gOJNLT4_yc8C&dq=&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fclient%3Dopera%26rls%3Dsv%26q%3Derich%2Bneumann%26sourceid%3Dopera%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2
Mats Winther

[JTEM]

Post by John Uebersax
My own view is that this is resolved by adopting a
"statistical" perspective on the subject. I believe
that there are the same basic personality types
now and in antiquity, but that the distribution of
these type has changed. As Mats remarked, the
average intelligence may be higher now than
before. That is one manifestation of this shift in
distributions.

If I might offer one amendment here....

Not only could it be a case where the average intelligence
is higher now than in ancient times, but it's likely that
the average intelligence in ancient times was higher than
in ancient times.

Oh. That's not supposed to make sense. This gives me
an opportunity to explain it....

It wasn't enough to be gifted in the past. You also had to
be either lucky or born into the right family. Otherwise,
you weren't going to get anything resembling an education.
You'd be like a super computer without any software to
run. So when we look at the achievements & literature of
the past we're not really looking at the smart people of the
past. We're looking at the smart people who were either
born into the right families, or were lucky enough to get
their talents noticed.

And, really, would you want to try learning to read at 30?

I might even suggest that having your intelligence noticed
isn't enough for a slave or lower-class person (peasant?).
If it isn't noticed early enough to develop it, educate it,
we might be talking about the proverbial lipstick on a pig.

[Karel Miklav]

Post by JTEM
Current thought is that these "ancients" were fully formed
modern humans -- and not some archaic form or evolutionary
inferior species. It's not like we're made out of DNA now but
back then people were made out of wood.

I agree that people were biologically the same then, but this
is not the deciding factor for humans. The world was different,
their society was unlike anything today so they couldn't just
act like an average consumer thrown into a Cleopatra movie.

Ego is a social construct and for an individual it is a mode
of operation - a state of mind. And it doesn't look like
something culturally exposed or very useful to an ordinary man
at that time.

Their rituals are probably not just accounts of what happened
to somebody (stories) but intricate social machinery, molds
they used to shape their world.

--

Regards,
Karel Miklav

[JTEM]

Post by Karel Miklav
Ego is a social construct and for an individual it is a
mode of operation - a state of mind. And it doesn't
look like something culturally exposed or very useful
to an ordinary man at that time.

It really depends on what school of thought that you're
buying into, now doesn't it? There are enough people
out there that believe the ego is a part of the human
mind, and not simply a product.

Post by Karel Miklav
Their rituals are probably not just accounts of what
happened to somebody (stories) but intricate social
machinery, molds they used to shape their world.

Their culture was a great deal different, but you don't
have to reach back in time to find cultures very different
than our own. On the other hand....

Life for Joe Average Egyptian hasn't changed a great
deal since the days of the Pharoahs, at least for the
modern poor. Modern communications may give them
a greater sense of the larger world, but day to day
existence can be remarkably similar.

[John Uebersax]

Post by M Winther
So the notion of purifying the ego in meditative practices, to reach a
higher level of consciousness, is a modern man's path to liberation. It is
a great truth projected on an old text where it doesn't belong. To my mind,
there is nothing wrong in using the Book of the Dead as a *metaphor*
for one's own conceptions. But then it's necessary to acknowledge this,

Mats, thanks for your excellent comments. I'm a little busy now but
look forward to addressing your remarks when I have a little more
time.

John

[samvaknin]

Hi,

For a more detailed view of pathological narcissism and the
Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (NPD) - click on these links:

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/narcissismglance.html

Other Personality Disorders

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faqpd.html

Take care.

Sam

[John Uebersax]

Hi Mats,

First, I agree that one must be wary of over-interpretation. I do try
to take this into my account. I don't mind at all people questioning
this. It's something to keep questioning.

Post by M Winther
So the notion of purifying the ego in meditative practices, to reach a
higher level of consciousness, is a modern man's path to liberation.

Well, I think we can pretty definitely find evidence of a similar
concern at least as far back as Gnosticism, Hermeticism, and
Neoplatonism, which take us back to at least the 2nd or 3rd centuries
AD. The Neoplatonists believed that the Pythagoreans (6th century
BC) had the same aim, and, further, that the Pythagoreans borrowed
some of these ideas from more ancient sources.

Post by M Winther
a great truth projected on an old text where it doesn't belong. To my mind,
there is nothing wrong in using the Book of the Dead as a *metaphor*

That's good. I'm prepared to accept that. That is, for me, even if
I'm doing nothing more than making a "Rorschach inkblot" out of the
EBOD, and projecting modern ideas onto it, I still suggest this is an
edifying acitivity. Sacred scripture is a good way to saturate the
intellect and consciousness with relevant, extra-mundane ideas,
setting a context for the positive creative processes to work. That
said, as I suggest in my other comments, I do believe that something
more than projection is going on.

Post by M Winther
for one's own conceptions. But then it's necessary to acknowledge this,
i.e., that it's not the true interpretation of the ancient papyrus, it's merely put
to use in a metaphorical way.
The Freudians always use ancient myths in a metaphorical way. They think
the Narcissus myth exemplifies narcissistic pathology. Truth is that the
Narcissus myth isn't even remotely connected with narcissism. The
difference is that the Freudians don't understand that it's merely
metaphorical. They actually think that mythology is an ancient diagnostics
manual.

I might agree with the Narcissus myth. But a one or two examples of
incorrect exigesis doesn't denigrate exigesis per se.

Actually, it seems to me that (for a change), what I am suggesting is
more or less standard Jungian theory, as expressed by Jung and Joseph
Campbell. Both have suggested that (1) mythology is in large part a
reflection of the collective unconscious, and (2) that, in particular,
when it comes to themes of descent into the underworld, etc., myths
are a metaphor for the process of individuation.

There is an affinity between what Jung called individuation and what I
call an "ascent to the here and now". We're ultimately talking about
some form of psychological salvation, although the particular details
of what the saved state consists of may differ somewhat.

Jung, I believe, consistently maintained that mythos concerning
resurrection could be understood (along with whatever religious
meaning it carries) as corresponding to psychological individuation.
And, in fact, Jung specifically referred to the myth of Osiris:

"Identification with some god or hero who is transformed in a sacred
ritual is discussed as an important form of personality
transformation. The Metamorphosis of Apuleius, the Osiris cult of
Egypt, and the Christian tradition are detailed as examples of this
phenomenon." [CW v. 9.1: The Archetypes and the Collective
Unconscious (p. 128). Concerning rebirth. 2. The psychology of
rebirth. 11. Subjective transformation. e. Identification with a cult-
hero.]

(Please note that the above is a quotation from the abstracts of the
Collected Works, not an actual quotation of Jung.)

John
--
John Uebersax PhD
Philosophy/Religion: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/religion.htm
Existential Psychology: http://members.aol.com/spiritualpsych/

[The_Sage]

Date written: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:06:09 +0200

Post by John Uebersax
Here's a link to an online article I wrote recently that attempts a
depth-psychological interpretation of a scene from the Egyptian Book

I find it more interesting to see what Jung thought about death...

"The maximum awareness which has been attained anywhere forms, so it seems to
me, the upper limit of knowledge to which the dead can attain. That is probably
why earthly life is of such great significance, and why it is that what a human
being 'brings over' at the time of his death is so important. Only here, in life
on earth, where the opposites clash together, can the general level of
consciousness be raised"

"There are experiences which show that the dead entangle themselves, so to
speak, in the psychology (sympathetic nervous system) of the living. This would
probably result in states of possession" (THE COLLECTED LETTERS OF CG JUNG, Vol
1, pg 258)

"But it [speaking with the dead] should not be experimented with because of the
danger of a disintegration of consciousness. To be on the safe side, one must be
content with spontaneous experiences. Experimenting with this contact regularly
leads either to the so-called communications becoming more and more stupid or to
a dangerous dissociation of consciousness" (THE COLLECTED LETTERS OF CG JUNG,
Vol 1, pg 258)

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind
with the most important social, political, and adaptive
challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years.
Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of
ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children,
our species" (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
=============================================================

[John Uebersax]

Just so you know, if you reply to a message in a thread and give your
message a new title, in Google Groups the name of the entire thread is
changed. (Probably in some email readers that is not the case.)

This is an awkward problem with no clearcut right-or-wrong answer, but
personally, my request would be to consider not starting a new thread
by changing the title in a reply.

Again, this is a bug with Google groups and not anybody's fault.

P.S. Last time I experimented with this, the title is set back to the
original when a reply is made to any message in the thread with the
original title! That means a thread title can switch back and forth,
according to which message is being replied to.

--
John Ueberax

[grackleflint]

Weird.

Sorry for the confusion; I've retitled subject headers on various
message boards (yahoo, blogs, etc) and never ran into this problem.

As you say, probably a Google bug.

Post by John Uebersax
Just so you know, if you reply to a message in a thread and give your
message a new title, in Google Groups the name of the entire thread is
changed. (Probably in some email readers that is not the case.)
This is an awkward problem with no clearcut right-or-wrong answer, but
personally, my request would be to consider not starting a new thread
by changing the title in a reply.
Again, this is a bug with Google groups and not anybody's fault.
P.S. Last time I experimented with this, the title is set back to the
original when a reply is made to any message in the thread with the
original title! That means a thread title can switch back and forth,
according to which message is being replied to.
--
John Ueberax