The Egyptian lived a long time, happy life. But Ba left him. He died.

Seventy days later he will be transferred from the embalming workshop to his eternal home. He will retire to the Duat and become Osiris1.

But this will be only after seventy days: after all, Isis, Nephthys and Anubis spent exactly 70 days collecting pieces and restoring the severed body of the great god, and since then the number 70 has become a special number that rules the earth and heaven: “the tear of Isis”2 for the murdered every year her husband descends into the Underworld beyond the western horizon and after 70 days reappears in the east, marking the beginning of a new year, the flood of the Nile and the spring resurrection of nature, similar to the resurrection of Osiris from the dead3

In the meantime, for now, the relatives of the deceased must put on mourning clothes and mourn him. The Egyptian himself is now Osiris, so his son must “become” Horus, and his wife and sister, Isis and Nephthys, before the end of the funeral ritual.

After mourning, the dead body will be transported on a funeral boat to the western shore to the House of Gold - an embalmers' workshop.

There are five embalmers. The most important of them is Anubis: after all, a priest in a jackal mask becomes Anubis in the same way as a deceased person becomes Osiris, and his son becomes Horus. Anubis is helped by four afterlife gods: Hapi4, who has the head of a baboon, the jackal-headed Duamutef, Ke-behsenuf with the head of a falcon, and Has with a human head.

In seventy days, the embalming gods will make a mummy. First they will wash the body with Nile water, and the body will become sacred Sah. Then, having expelled the para-schite from the House of Gold, who criminally opened Sakh with a knife, Anubis and his henchmen will remove the entrails and lower them into canopies - funeral vessels filled with decoctions of medicinal herbs and various potions. Canopy! made in the form of figurines of Hapi, Duamutef, Kebehsenuf and Imset.

Having closed the canopies, the embalming gods will treat Sah’s body with potions of incense and herbs and swaddle it tightly with cloth bandages. These bandages will be made by the god of weaving Hedihati from the tears of the gods for the murdered Osiris.

Relatives and friends of the deceased must vigilantly ensure that all rituals are strictly observed. Not a single ritual can be broken, not a single magic spell can be forgotten, otherwise the Ka of the deceased will be severely insulted by neglect of himself and will not forgive the insult. He will become an evil demon and will persecute his family, sending misfortune to his descendants.

If the deceased was poor, his mummy will be placed in a simple wooden coffin. On the walls of the coffin, with inside, the names of the gods who will resurrect the deceased and guide him into the Duat should be written, and on the lid there should be a prayer to the ruler of the dead Osiris: “O you, Unnefer5 good god! Give this man in your Kingdom a thousand loaves of bread, a thousand oxen, a thousand glasses of beer!”

The rich man's coffin will be luxuriously decorated with paintings.

Seventy days later, the funeral procession, filling the western bank of the Nile with cries and groans, will approach the tomb. The deceased bought this tomb many years ago, almost in his youth, and since then - for the rest of his life - he has been equipping this eternal refuge, preparing to move here6. For a very high fee, he hired stonecutters, scribes, sculptors and artists who decorated the walls of the tomb with reliefs, inscriptions containing various spells; they carved a statue for Ba and statues of the gods who should guard the sarcophagus; and they made all kinds of utensils - everything that the deceased would need in the Duat: amulets, clothes, weapons, chairs and papyri with sacred spells.

At the entrance to the tomb, the gods of the Duat will be waiting for the funeral procession. The wooden coffin will be lowered to the ground, and the last rites will be performed over the mummy - “the opening of the mouth.”

This ritual symbolizes and repeats a great event that once took place on earth - the coming of Horus to the mummy of Osiris. Just as in those distant times Horus allowed his father to swallow his healed eye, and Osiris rose from the dead, so now: Horus - a priest in a falcon mask - will touch the lips of the mummy with a magic wand with a tip in the form of a ram's head. This tip contains Ba7, so that the ritual of “opening the mouth” will return his Ba to the deceased and resurrect him for life in the Duat.

If the deceased was rich, then the priests, having completed all funeral rituals, will take his coffin to the tomb and lower it into a stone sarcophagus. A canopic image depicting Imset will be placed at the southern wall of the burial chamber, Hapi at the northern wall, Duamutef at the eastern wall and Kebehsenuf at the western wall. The entrance to the tomb will be sealed with the seal of the necropolis, covered with stones, covered with gravel so that the robbers will not find a loophole, and will leave, forever leaving the deceased to enjoy peace.

And if the Egyptian was poor, and he had neither a stone sarcophagus nor a tomb, then a wooden coffin or body wrapped in a mat would be placed in a pit not far from the rich burial, and the body of the deceased would be able to feed on the sacrifices that would be brought to the rich man.

Resurrection and journey through the Underworld

And then the day came for Ba’s return to the mummy.

Ba flew into the tomb on wings and landed at the western wall, near the magical image of the door to the other world. Through this image, Double-Ka came out to meet Ba.

At their call, the gods gathered at the sarcophagus of the sleeping man. Solemnly raising their hands, they cast magic spells, and the deceased rose from the dead8

The event for which the Egyptian had been preparing all his life on earth was finally happening! Step forward - and through the magical image of the door he entered the other world.

Immediately behind the door stood a huge stone gate - the first gate to the kingdom of Osiris. Two gatekeepers - two monstrous snakes - blocked the road and demanded that the deceased say their names - Ren.

How could an Egyptian know the names of the guardians of the Duat? Still from a past, earthly life. He had to read the “Book of the Dead” - a sacred papyrus, where the Underworld is described in detail, and there are even color pictures depicting afterlife scenes, and maps are drawn other world. The Book of the Dead lists the names of all guardians and demons; and the spells that you need to know in order to safely overcome all obstacles are written down exactly as they should be pronounced, word for word. No sound can be added or subtracted from the spell, otherwise it will lose its power. But it is more difficult to learn all the magic words than to remember the hieroglyphs - therefore, a papyrus scroll with the entry “Book of the Dead” was necessarily placed in the sarcophagus of the deceased along with amulets: after all, the deceased could forget something or get lost in the Duat without a map. And the most important spells were carved on the sarcophagus and on the walls of the burial chamber...

- “Many Faces” and “Following the Fire” - these are your names! - answered the deceased, and the gatekeeper snakes opened the gates.

Before entering the Underworld, the Egyptian had to stop at the gateway and say, turning to Osiris:

O great ruler of the Duat! I came to you to find bliss and peace in your Kingdom. My heart is sinless. May the great Ra illuminate my path!

Behind the gate two winding paths began. Both of them led to the Hall of Two Truths; you just had to choose one, any one. And in both cases the path ahead was not easy. The paths were separated by a fiery river. The flames roared madly, hot coals rained down on his head, and the poisonous smoke choked him and ate his eyes. In order not to suffocate, the deceased had to have with him an amulet with the image of the air god Shu.

Monsters and giant snakes lived along the banks of the river. Only those who knew their names, pronounced the spells correctly and had talismans with them that would save them from troubles and dangers could walk along the path.

Beyond the river the paths closed again. Here the road ended at the second gate.

To make it easier for the dead to travel through the Duat, the gods created arits there - quiet, safe corners in grottoes and caves. Neither snakes nor scorpions crawled into the arits; There was spring water gurgling, it was light and easy to breathe. In the arita, the deceased could rest and gain strength for the further journey. But, of course, not everyone could enter the blissful corner, but only those who knew the magic spells and the names of all the demons standing guard.

Having passed all the gates, the deceased finally reached the goal of his journey - the Great Hall of Two Truths.

The Judgment of Osiris and Eternal Life in the Fields of Reeds

On the threshold of the Hall the deceased was met by Anubis.

Greetings to you, great one among the gods of the Underworld! “I have come to you, my lord,” said the deceased.

The jackal-headed god of the dungeon remained majestically silent. After listening to the greeting, he took the Egyptian by the hand and led him into the hall where the Judgment was held.

"Map" of the Duat. In the middle is a fiery river; along the banks of the river (above and below) - paths to the Hall of Two Truths

Judgment of Osiris. Left: Anubis led the deceased to the Great Hall of Two Truths. In the center: Anubis weighs the heart of the deceased on the Scales of Truth; on the right side of Libra is the feather of Maat, symbolic “truth”; next to Libra is Ammat. God Thoth records the result of the weighing and the verdict. Above: the deceased makes a speech of acquittal before the Great Ennead, led by the god Ra. Right: Horus led the deceased after the acquittal to the throne of Osiris. At the foot of the throne in a lotus flower are the sons of Horus: Has, Hapi, Duamutef and Kebehsenuf; at the top is the winged Solar Eye (a symbol of the protection of world order) with the feather of Maat; behind the throne - Isis and Nephthys

They walked past statues and columns entwined with live snakes. Monsters continually crawled out of the darkness towards them and, grinning their jaws, sternly demanded to know their names. The deceased had to answer - Anubis remained silent and waited.

And then the last doors opened, and the Egyptian, following Anubis, entered the Courtroom.

Here, in silence and solemn twilight, sat the judge gods: two Enneads of gods, the Great and the Lesser9. Before each of the two Enneads, the Egyptian had to answer for his earthly affairs, twice had to prove that all his oaths of sinlessness were not false, but true. That is why the Courtroom was called the Hall of Two Truths.

The headdresses of judges were decorated with the feather of Truth - the feather of Maat.

The Great Ennead, which included Ra, Shu, Tef-nut, Geb, Nut, Nephthys, Isis, Horus - the son of Osiris, Hat-hor, Hu (Will) and Sia (Mind), began the interrogation of the deceased.

Who are you? State your name, the gods demanded. The deceased identified himself.

Where did you come from? - followed the second question.

The Egyptian named the city in which he lived.

When the interrogation ended, witnesses - Meskhent, Shai and Ba of the deceased - spoke before the Great Ennead. They told what good and bad deeds the Egyptian had done in his life.

After listening to the witnesses, the gods of the Great Ennead turned their heads and looked straight at the deceased. The Egyptian anxiously looked towards them, hoping to guess from the faces of the judges whether they were merciful or harsh towards him. But the faces of the gods were impassive, and the Egyptian, with his eyes downcast, froze in submissive expectation.

“Talk about yourself,” was heard then in the dungeon. Ra himself ordered this.

And the deceased, raising his right hand as a sign that he swears to tell only the truth, announced his acquittal speech - “Confession of Denial” - before the judicial Ennead:

I did not commit injustice against people.
I did not oppress my neighbors.
I didn't rob the poor.
I did not do anything that displeased the gods.
I did not incite the servant against his master

So he listed forty-two crimes, swearing to the gods that he was not guilty of any of them.

But the judges were still impassive. In vain the deceased looked into their eyes in the hope of guessing his fate. The order was to turn to face Malaya Enneada and make the “Second Acquittal Speech.”

And again, calling by name each of the forty-two gods of the Ennead, the Egyptian listed forty-two crimes, assuring that he was not involved in any of them:

O Usekh-nemtut, who appears on June, I did no harm! O Hepet-sedezhet, who appears in Her-aha, I did not steal! O Denji, who appears in Khemenu, I did not envy!

O Sed-kesu, who appears in Neninisut, I did not lie!
O Udi-neser, who appears in Het-Ka-Pta, I did not steal food!
O Kerti, who appears in the West, I did not grumble in vain!

Two confessions were read out, and the deceased assured that every word he said was true. But was there really no lie in his speeches?.. People are skilled pretenders: they can utter the most shameless lie, looking into the eyes, with an ingenuous face, swear by the name of Ra, and not a single muscle flinches. Only the heart will beat a little faster, but you can’t see the heart...

Not to be seen by earthly judges. And the judges of the Underworld see everything.

Anubis takes the heart of the deceased and places it on the scale of the afterlife of Truth. Maat herself, the goddess of justice, truth and justice, wields these Libra. On the other bowl is her feather, a symbol of Truth.

If the heart turns out to be heavier or lighter than the feather and the Libra arrow deviates, it means that the deceased lied when uttering some kind of oath. The more false oaths there were, the greater the difference between the weight of the heart and the Truth was shown by the scales of the goddess. The deceased fell to his knees in despair, begging for mercy, but the gods were indifferent to such belated repentance. The sinner’s name was declared non-existent, and the heart was given to be devoured by the goddess Am-mat - the “Devoter”, a monster with the body of a hippopotamus, lion paws, a lion’s mane and the mouth of a crocodile. Ammat ate the sinful heart with a chomping sound, and the Egyptian lost his life - now forever.

If the bowls remained in balance, the deceased was recognized as acquitted. The Great Ennead solemnly announced its decision to grant him eternal life, and God Thoth wrote down the name of the Egyptian on papyrus.

After this, Horus took the deceased by the hand and led him to the throne of his father, the Lord of the Underworld Osiris. Throughout the trial, Osiris silently watched what was happening. He did not take part in either the interrogation or the weighing of the heart, but only sanctified the entire ritual with his presence.

The Egyptian was solemnly escorted past the great god sitting on the throne. The trial ended there. The deceased went to the place of his eternal bliss - to the Fields of Iaru, “Fields of Reeds”. The patron god Shai accompanied him there.

In the Reed Fields, the same life that he led on earth awaited him, only without earthly anxieties, sorrows, needs and worries. The seven Hathor, Nepri and other gods provided the deceased with food, made his afterlife arable lands fertile, and his livestock fat. So that the deceased could enjoy their vacation, so that they would not have to cultivate the fields with their own hands and graze the cattle themselves, wooden or clay figurines - ushebti - were left in tombs, in special boxes.

The word "ushebti" means "defendant". The sixth chapter of the Book of the Dead talks about how to make ushabti work. When in the Fields of Reeds the gods call the deceased to work, the ushabti man must come forward instead of the owner and respond: “I’m here!” and unquestioningly carry out the work that is entrusted to him.

The rich residents of Ta-Kemet could buy as much ushabti as they wanted for eternal life. Those who were poorer bought 360 of them, one for each day of the year. And the poor bought one or two ushabti men, but along with them they took a papyrus scroll to the Underworld - a list listing 360 helpers. Thanks to miraculous spells, the ushabti listed in the list came to life and worked for the owner as hard as wooden and clay figurines.

1 In ancient times, only dead pharaohs were identified with Osiris. Starting approximately from the 17th - 16th centuries BC. e. Any dead Egyptian was considered Osiris. The name of the supreme afterlife god was added to his name: for example, after his death they said “Rahotep-Osiris” about a man named Rahotep.

2 Sirius, the brightest star.

3 In ancient times, the first rising of Sirius at the latitudes of Egypt coincided with the summer solstice - June 21.

4 This god should not be confused with Hapi, the god of the Nile.

5 Unnefer - “being in a state of goodness”, the most common epithet of Osiris. It came from him Russian name Onuphry.

6 The Greeks said that “the life of an Egyptian consists of preparations for death.”

7 The words “Ba” and “ram” were pronounced the same.

8 “The Resurrected Egyptian” is both his Double-nick-Ka and his “afterlife body”, and the “body” and the mummy are not the same thing: the “body” travels through the Underworld and appears before Osiris at the Judgment, and the mummy remains lying in the sarcophagus. There is nothing surprising in such illogicality. It is completely natural: after all, there were no clear, clear and unambiguous ideas about what happens to a person after death in any religion, just as there were and are no unambiguous descriptions of the other world. At different times, different ideas are formed, which gradually overlap one another and intertwine in the most incomprehensible way.

9 The Greek word "ennead" corresponds to the Egyptian "pesed-jet" - "nine". However, the Great Ennead included 11 gods, and the Lesser Ennead - 42. They were called “Nines” because they were considered like “afterlife doubles” of the Great Nine gods of the city of Iunu (Heliopolis), revered throughout Egypt (Atum, Shu, Tefnut, Geb , Nut, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys and Set). Following the model of the Heliopolis Nine, other cities of Egypt also created their own local nines of gods.

(Chapter 125 of the “Book of the Dead”, translation from ancient Egyptian by M.A. Korostovtsev; Quoted from: I.V. Cancer. Myths Ancient Egypt. St. Petersburg, 1993. pp. 253-254):

I didn't harm people.

I did not harm the livestock.

I have committed no sin in the place of Truth.

I didn't do anything bad.

My name did not reach the ears of the helmsman of the sacred boat.

I didn't blaspheme.

I did not raise my hand to the weak.

I did not do anything abominable before the gods.

I did not oppress the slave in the presence of his master.

I was not the cause of the illness.

I was not the cause of the tears.

I didn't kill.

I didn't order the killing.

I didn't hurt anyone.

I didn't run out of supplies in the temples.

I did not spoil the bread of the gods.

I did not appropriate the bread of the dead.

I didn't commit adultery.

I didn't curse.

I neither added nor subtracted weight to the measure.

I did not subtract from the arura [an ancient Egyptian measure of area - 0.2 hectares].

I didn't cheat even half an arura.

I didn't put any pressure on the weight.

I didn't cheat with the plumb line.

I did not take milk from the children's lips.

I did not drive the sheep and goats out of their pasture.

I did not snare the bird of the gods.

I did not catch the fish of the gods in their ponds.

I didn't stop the water when it came.

I did not block the path of the running water.

I did not extinguish the sacrificial fire at its hour.

I did not miss the days of meat sacrifices.

I did not scatter the flocks on God's estates.

I did not obstruct God's exit.

I'm clean, I'm clean, I'm clean, I'm clean!

My purity is the purity of the great Benu in Heracleopolis, for I am the nose of the Lord of breath, who gives life to all Egyptians on this day of the fullness of the Eye of Horus (Moon) in the second month of the Sunrise, on the last day - in the presence of the ruler of this earth (Ra).

Yes, I saw the fullness of the Eye of Horus (the Moon) in Heliopolis!

Nothing bad will happen to me in this country, in the Great Hall of the Two Truths, for I know the names of the forty-two gods who dwell in it, the companions of the great god (Osiris).”

Obviously, it is during the “confession of denial” that the heart of the deceased is weighed by Anubis and Thoth, which confirms the “confession”. In the case of a perfect action, proclaimed as imperfect, the heart “gets heavier”, its balance with the feather of the goddess Maat (goddess of truth), lying on the other side of the scales, is disturbed, and the heart can, without passing the test, fall straight into the mouth of the monster Amt (Ammat), sitting at the scales and awaiting the results of the weighing, in order to absorb the culprit and, obviously, completely destroy him, deprive him of all existence, cast him into dark chaos. Therefore, instead of a heart, a stone image of a sacred beetle, a scarab, with a corresponding spell inscribed on it could be placed in the chest of the deceased: such a heart would certainly have passed the test. In any case, an amulet with the image of a scarab was placed on the chest of the deceased, which perhaps symbolized the same action of substitution.

As we see, we are faced with a court, a “legalistic” court, a competition according to strict rules, which does not imply assistance to the deceased from the gods, but means checking for compliance with the code. In order to pass this test, the help of magic was required, it was necessary to know the sequence of the Egyptian “Book of the Dead”, which with its spells opens all the gates of the Duat (underground region) for the deceased, it was necessary to know the names of the gods, giving them over to the power of the one who knows the name, or, in any case, freeing him from their persecution.

The deceased was protected not by repentance, but by knowledge plus participation in magical rituals that ensured his purity, as stated at the end of the “confession of denial”: The Great Benu, mentioned here, was identified by the Greeks with the phoenix, a bird that burns itself to rise from the fire that has consumed its old, decaying compositions; sometimes - laying an egg in the nest in which she burned herself in order to emerge from the egg young again (that is, self-generating herself, like the once great Ra); Benu's symbol was Ben-Ben - the hill that first arose among the watery chaos of Nun, stood out from it, marking the beginning of the separation of things. Ben-Ben is the embryo and foundation of the cosmos, the universe; Thus, in the ritual indicated in the “negative confession”, the Egyptian touched the beginnings of the universe, being renewed by this touch, restoring the correct relationship with the universe, and - without metanoia, “change of mind”, automatically - cleansing himself of everything committed unrighteously. It is not for nothing that “confession” and “union with the deity (first principle)” in the “confession of denial” swapped places. What is happening here is not a meeting of two personalities: God and man - in the field of love and freedom, but some impersonal action, subject to the strict laws of the universe.

It is obvious that in the two cases discussed, the sin . For the ancient Egyptian, as we can judge, including from the “confession of denial,” sin is, in essence, crime against someone external to him: against the gods, loved ones (here the line of the second “negative confession” is especially touching, where the Egyptian reports that he “was not intolerable”), against people in general, especially defenseless ones: babies, widows, orphans, against buyers, against the dead, against livestock, against the elements (“I did not stop the water at its time. I did not block the path of the running water. I did not extinguish the sacrificial fire at its hour”); that is, the sin here is overstepping human limits, “losing one’s temper” and, accordingly, encroaching on someone else’s property, to someone else's place in the world, which naturally disrupts order and balance in the universe. Moreover, things in ancient cultures are perceived as existing primarily not in their everyday relationships, not in relation to the “subject”, that is, not as they exist “for us”, but as they exist “for themselves” , in the vertical of its own ascending meaning. This own ascending meaning is what makes a thing, first of all, not “useful”, but “significant”; the thing is a symbol, a word in the book of the universe (at the same time, this meaning connects it with the word, makes it identical to the corresponding word in magical rituals). That is, things here are not located in a common horizontal space created by everyday interactions, but are firmly connected to “their place,” to a place that is analogous to the placenta, the uterus, where the baby is born; Plato (427–347 BC) calls it horoy, Aristotle (384–322 BC) calls it topos. This place is the private space of a thing in the universe.

Accordingly, the space of life consists of these private spaces (and what we now call planet Earth consisted of the private spaces of the lands peoples– and these lands were isolated from each other almost like universes): it is not things that are placed in space, but space itself for the first time begins to exist, being composed of the “places” of things. Consequently, by encroaching on someone’s place, a person does not redistribute some common and unified space in his favor, but inflicts a wound on the fabric of the universe, breaks through the placenta of a thing. By touching the fundamental principles of existence in cleansing rituals, he, as it were, returns everything to its place, restores the places of things damaged by him in the previous form in which they existed from the moment water chaos was organized into space - that is, from the moment of the “beginning” of space.

It is precisely this understanding of things by the ancients that once again reminds us of the translation by the greatest German philosopher of the twentieth century, Martin Heidegger, of the beginning of the chorus from Sophocles’ Antigone (497 or 495–406 BC): “There are many terrible things, but there is nothing more terrible than man (das Unheimlichste)". In Russian translations we come across the words “there is nothing stronger, more wondrous, more powerful than man.” Shervinsky: “There are many miracles in the world, man is the most wonderful of them all” (Quoted from: Tatiana Goricheva. Daniel Orlov. Alexander Sekatsky. From Oedipus to Narcissus. SPb., 2001. P. 132. The topic of Heidegger’s translation is touched upon by Daniel Orlov). The Greek word δεινός, which is so strangely translated in different ways, has the meaning: 1. terrible, terrible, dangerous; 2. extraordinary, unusually great, capable, skillful, excellent, strange, amazing. However, the entire second group of meanings is marked “in a figurative meaning.” Verb δεινόω – make terrible, exaggerate- shows us what the Greeks meant by terrible and, accordingly, why we began to perceive this word exclusively in a figurative meaning. The essence of the terrible for the Greek consists precisely in the violation by a thing of its place, its boundaries, in its exaggeration, to which of all the things in the world man is most prone - that is why he is not more terrible. But for us, the concept of “limitedness” has long meant weakness and insufficiency, and going beyond one’s limits is perceived as “ability,” “skill,” etc.

Sin - in the meaning of the Slavic word - is “flaw”, “error”; sin in Greek means “miss” - αμαρτία - from αμαρτάνω - to make a mistake, miss, miss, and we saw an echo of the latter meaning in the ancient Egyptian understanding of sin: missed one’s place, ended up in someone else’s, encroached on someone else’s. But in Christianity this word radically changes its meaning. This can be seen from the fact that Christianity includes despair, suicide, gluttony, and laziness among the mortal sins. We see that this is anything, but not an encroachment on someone else’s property, not crime in the sense of overstepping the boundaries of the place inherent in a given being.

In the pagan (and now in the “atheistic”) world, sin (= crime) is a violation of norms that are established to ensure mutual security of the members of this world(only in the “atheistic” world the circle of those who are understood as its members is much narrower than it was in the pagan world). In Christianity, sin is something with which a person harms, first of all, himself (and secondly, an accomplice in sin), and not someone else (the murderer Raskolnikov in F. M. Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” will not without reason insist that that he “killed himself, not the old woman”). Gluttony is a mortal sin not because there are hungry people in the world. Even if everyone is full, it will still remain a sin. Sin, as is clear from the explanation of what confession is in Christianity, is first of all illness, sin - everything that gets in a person’s path to life, that damages the sources of life in him. A mortal sin is mortal not because someone (Someone) punishes a person with death for it, but because through it a person kills himself. The concept of sin in Christianity is not rules, for failure to comply with which one is punished, but railings placed on a narrow bridge leading to life, on both sides of which there is an abyss and Gehenna. No one will punish you if you climb over the railing and fall into fire and darkness. And what other punishment will be needed?

Imagine: a small child, two or three years old, an uncontrollably curious age, and a samovar is boiling on the table - a huge, shining, golden, sunny ball, you just want to wrap your arms around it and press your cheek to it. But my mother won’t let me. The question is - if, despite explanations and prohibitions, the child still breaks out and touches the samovar - can we say that he was punished?

One priest said that the essence of the ten commandments can be expressed in the eleventh: “Do not drink sulfuric acid.” But we usually react to such prohibitions in the following way: “Can I dilute it a little and a lot?” And then (if we really diluted it too much and got just a stomach ulcer) we exclaim: “Lord, why did you punish me?!”

Christianity is convinced that the Lord does not give incomprehensible regulations, the violation of which is punishable by death. He only asks the person: “Well, please don’t die...”. And he explains on what paths his death awaits.

And death awaits him, for example, on the paths of pleasing his flesh. Thus, gluttony literally buries the human spirit in the rubble of the flesh, or at least confines it within the confines of caring for the needs of the stomach. Christianity, transforming the flesh from a “cage for the soul” into a “temple for the spirit,” establishes the correct hierarchy of spirit and flesh, and pleasing the flesh is a violation of this hierarchy, subordination, enslavement of the higher to the lower—the basis of all sin. Christianity fights against pleasing the flesh, wanting to free man from slavery: slavery not only of the flesh, but also slavery to those that overcome the flesh, to the elemental forces associated with it, and even directly to demons. Daily morning prayer The Guardian Angel contains a prayer: “Do not give room to the evil demon to possess me through the violence of this mortal body.” Man's slavery to the flesh is slavery to death and corruption. The symbol of man in Greek culture was centaur: the human spirit (the vertical of the image is the human torso), grown into horse flesh (the horizontal of the image is the body of the horse), unable to control its lower, bestial desires, carried at the will of its horse flesh. The symbol of man in Christian culture becomes rider- the spirit that has saddled the flesh, tamed it and ruled it.

Sin in Christianity is the “sting of death” in our flesh, sin is not getting into oneself, not conforming to who one really is, to the image of God in oneself, and not at all a violation of someone’s rights and boundaries, which turns out to be only one from the consequences of “not getting into yourself.”

So, we often call different things with the same words.

The reason for such a mixture of such disparate things is, of course, first of all, the translation of foreign concepts into another language. However, language, like art (also a language!), is created by the corresponding culture - that is, ultimately, by religion. Thus, what happens is translation, But substitution concepts of one religion with the concept of another religion, often very uncritically implemented. The most common example already mentioned is when we pagan spell we call prayer.

Perhaps the most general “religious concept” is considered soul . It is the presence of a soul in a person that extreme materialism denies (“soul is vapor”). But what do we really mean when we say this word within a particular religious system?

To clarify the meaning of the Russian word, let's turn to Dahl. " Soul– an immortal spiritual being, gifted with reason and will; in general meaning: man, with spirit and body; in closer: a man without flesh, incorporeal, after his death; in the closest: the vital being of man, imagined from the body and from the spirit, and in this sense it is said that animals also have a soul. Soul also - the mental and spiritual qualities of a person, conscience, inner feeling, etc. The soul is the disembodied body of the spirit" The proverbs and sayings cited by Dahl in this vocabulary nest will be useful for us: “ Give your soul to God- die. Lay down your soul for someone- sacrifice life. Lay down your soul for someone- vouch for an important matter. Search for someone else's soul- want to destroy your neighbor. It’s easy on the soul, it’s hard– calm and cheerful, preoccupied and sad. My soul is out of place- I'm afraid, I'm worried. Take your soul away- to rest, to be comforted. Release your soul to repentance– don’t destroy in vain, let him live. Live with someone in perfect harmony- peacefully, amicably, lovingly. This matter is on my mind- conscience reproaches or care does not give peace. It's on your soul- you are to blame, you will give God an answer for this. Pretend- act against conscience. The soul freezes“I lose my senses, my memory, I lose consciousness.”

The soul here appears as something essential unity, and the definition “double-minded” indicates a serious damage man into schism personalities, to its disintegration, or at least to the presence masks, disguises. But this idea is not the only one that exists.

In a number of religious systems we will encounter the perception of man as conglomerate souls with different posthumous fates. The ancient Egyptians, for example, counted at least six “souls” - “life forces” in humans: Ren, Ah, Shuit, Ka, Ba, Sah. Most likely there were seven of them: by analogy with the seven colors of the rainbow into which a ray of white light is decomposed: the white ray is made up of seven heterogeneous entities that together form a perfect unity, unique, unforeseen, unpredictable based on the components included in it. Each of these essences, in turn, could be considered as seven-component (the pharaohs had seven Ah).

Ren- the true name of a person, secret, hidden in life behind names - nicknames(that is, data to “click”, hail, call a person and not related to his true essence). The true name, as already mentioned, gave the one who knew it unlimited power over the one to whom it belonged; one who knew the true name could kill its bearer, take possession of his will, and heal him from a fatal illness. The true name ensured that a person (god, thing) remained in the realm of existence, therefore, even the tombs were guarded and preserved until the owner’s Ren was forgotten, erased by time from the walls of the last dwelling and from the hearts of the living. After Ren’s disappearance, the deceased was considered to have “joined the deity” and “distributing the stone to people” - that is, no longer in need of preserving a place to live in the realm of existence, no longer in need of material “filler” for his image. It was the name that made a thing in the realm of phenomena what it is. Therefore, sculptors sometimes carved Ren of the reigning pharaoh on the statues of his distant predecessors, cutting off the former Ren - and the statue became the image of the ruling ruler (See: I.V. Cancer. Myths of Ancient Egypt. St. Petersburg, 1993, pp. 152-153).

Oh– literally “Enlightened”, “Blessed”. This soul was depicted as a crested ibis. Associated with her, as well as with Shuit(“shadow”) rituals are practically unknown.

Ka– “Double” – placed in the tomb in the form of figurines; on the reliefs it was depicted as a dark silhouette. It was for Ka that tombs were built and for Ka things for living and food were delivered there (or - they were painted on the walls). Ka, deprived of his place, can become a dark wandering avenging spirit invading the world of the living. It is with Ka that the tales of the “curse of the pyramids” are associated. Ka is, as it were, a “parallel person”: the one who, when we approach the mirror, “approaches it from the other side.” The Egyptian city was divided by the Nile into two parts: the city of the living and the city of the dead, the city of Ka. The “double” is obviously not present in existence at the same time as the living person, being “beyond the line,” but when a person dies, “crosses the line,” Ka comes into existence. The trait always remains between the person and the “Double”.

Ba was depicted as a falcon with a human head and brought to life Sakh(body, mummy). She flew out of the body, and the person died, but as long as the mummy (Sakh) was preserved, Ba had a place to return to. In case of damage to Sakh, statues were created that had a portrait resemblance - so that Ba could recognize them - incorruptible substitutes for Sakh. Thus, as a result of an urgent, practical need, a sculptural portrait and a pictorial portrait arise, taken during the person’s lifetime in order to be inserted into the funeral shroud.

Scientists note the inconsistency of Egyptian texts in describing the posthumous fate of a person: “on the one hand, the royal deceased is guaranteed a quiet existence in his tomb, on the other, his soul (Ba) and his double (Ka) are given the opportunity to leave the tomb, get closer to the great gods and remain in their society in the other world. These two diametrically opposed, even mutually exclusive, tendencies coexist throughout Egyptian religion. Moreover, over time they merge into a single, internally contradictory whole. There is, of course, no logic in this, but the Egyptians’ ideas about the afterlife are not an area in which the search for consistency is fruitful”( M.A. Korostovtsev. Religion of Ancient Egypt. M., 1976. S. 204-205).

However, perhaps the fact is that Ba and Ka took turns staying in the tomb and in the “world of the gods” or in the “fields of Ialu” (“reed fields”), simultaneously crossing the line separating the worlds, as a result of which man seemed to be all time was in the tomb, but all the time he was in the “world of the gods.” Just as Sakh could be replaced with an “incorruptible image,” it was also possible to depict everything necessary for living - “incorruptible images” of necessary things forever supplied the deceased with everything “necessary,” “coming to life” together with the revived Sakh or her substitute.

A person is also perceived in shamanism as a conglomerate of souls, some of which go to the upper or lower world, while others remain for some time to “live out” after the death of the body in the world of the living. The soul of a living person can be “lost,” which entails a long-term illness (obviously, this means that one of the souls is lost, and the nature of the illness will be determined by which soul is lost). The shaman’s task in this case is to find and return the “lost” soul. The souls of children are especially prone to “walking on their own”; in Siberia, you can observe the following picture: while collecting children from the forest into a boat, the father continues to call out their names even when everyone is already sitting in place. It is he who calls upon the souls of children who might get carried away and not appear on time. To avoid loss, children's souls can be “handed over” to a shaman, and he will place them in a safe place in the upper world, in a “room” where he will watch them and feed them. The children will be healthy and prosperous as long as the shaman in the “upper room” takes good care of their souls.

Buddhism believes that “man”, “I”, “soul” is only a conventional name for the totality of various components: material body ( kaya), immaterial mind ( manas or chitta), formless consciousness ( vijnana), or five skandha(groups of changing elements): bodily form ( rupa), feelings (sensations) of pleasure, suffering and indifference ( vedana), perception (recognition), including understanding and naming ( sanjna), predisposition or desire generated by the impressions of past experience (karmic impulse) ( samskara), consciousness of oneself ( vijnana). A person consists of these parts, just as a cart consists of wheels, shafts, axles, etc. When the shafts were removed, the wheels were removed, the axles were broken - where is the cart then, asks Buddhism. The existence of the soul is determined by the presence of this aggregate; when the aggregate disintegrates, the soul ceases to exist. Therefore, it is completely wrong to talk about the concept of transmigration of souls in relation to Buddhism. What is preserved for subsequent existence (or rather, what generates subsequent existence) is a karmic impulse, the balance of the previous existence not reduced to zero, which becomes the basis of a new totality, a new “cart”.

Thus, not in all cultures a person has (or feels like he has) personal integrity. Only the image of God, the image of the Divine personality, standing behind the combination of random human properties, integrates the human soul, collects it, preserves it from decay, preserves it for eternity.

It follows that the concept personalities is not at all inherent in all cultures, but turns out to be rare, one might say, unique, specifically Christian, in contrast to the concept individuality . Individual (from Latin in - not, divido - divide, divide) - indivisible, the same as the Greek “atom”, the limit of division of the genus, embodied in a series homogeneous beings characterized by the fact that they contain complete sets generic properties. The individual is defined in relation to general nature as its particular manifestation. Our characteristic perception of the individual as an autonomous subject - a consequence of the ideas about personality that arise in Christian culture - is now borrowed by non-Christian cultures from cultures of Christian origin, but is completely unusual for non-Christian cultures themselves. If our perception of individuals can be depicted approximately as follows:

then in the perception of other cultures it will be expressed more like this:

Man here is only a representative of the species, only a concrete manifestation, a representation of a certain “humanity”, united and whole in his being, and not at all an autonomous being. In the same way, any other creature turns out to be in these cultures only a representative of a single common nature, and one could talk about “personality” here only by applying this concept to the common nature of individuals.

Approximately this perception of the world is suggested by J. Wilson among the ancient Egyptians: “The fluid nature of Egyptian ideas and the tendency to synthesize the most various elements led some Egyptologists to believe that the Egyptians were in fact monotheists, that all gods were included in one single god. We will now present a text that at first glance seems to be the most important document in defense of the thesis of monotheism. But we would like to preface it with the statement that we are talking here not about one God, but about the unified nature of phenomena observed in the universe . In relation to gods and people, the Egyptians were monophysites: many gods and many people, but ultimately all of one nature" ( G. Frankfort, G.A. Frankfort, J. Wilson, T. Jacobsen. On the threshold of philosophy. Per. from English T. Tolstoy. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 86). T. Jacobsen attributes a similar worldview to the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia: “Having said that for a Mesopotamian, natural phenomena were animated and personified, we have simplified a lot. We disguised the potential difference he felt. It would not be entirely correct to say that each phenomenon was a personality; it would be better to say that the will and personality were present in each phenomenon - in it and at the same time, as if behind it, for a single concrete phenomenon could not completely outline and reveal the associated will and personality (...). The Mesopotamian felt that in a huge number of individual phenomena - specific pieces of flint, specific reeds - he was faced with a single personality. He felt that there was, as it were, a common center of all forces, endowed with a special individuality and being a personality in itself. This personal center permeated all concrete phenomena and gave them the properties that we distinguish in them: all pieces of flint are “Flint,” all reeds are Nidaba, etc.” (Ibid. pp. 167 – 169).

A.B. writes about something very similar in connection with the Australians. Zubov: “The prohibitions on disclosing secret relationships with an “ancestor” are so strict that anthropologists still cannot accurately reproduce the mechanism of connecting a person’s individual soul with the spirit of an “ancestor” in eternity. Either this is dissolution and loss of personality, or preservation. Either the personality of an Australian at ontological depths is not individualized at all and he feels himself to be only an empirical manifestation of a “totem”" ( A.B. Zubov. History of religions. Book one. M., 1997. P. 209).

A separate, autonomous, cut-off existence of an individual, cut off from the general nature, the existence of an individual “on his own” is possible only in a culture that is Christian in origin. For Christ brought “not peace, but a sword” in order to cut off man from the family root, so that everyone for himself and for himself, and not as a member of the clan and people, could determine which community he belongs to (“Do you think that I have come to give peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division; for from now on five in one house will be divided, three against two, and two against three: father against son, and son against father; mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Luke 12:51-53)).

Thus, this isolated existence was supposed to be a transitional moment, as it were, necessary for self-determination, for inclusion of oneself in a new community, for “grafting into the heavenly olive tree.” And yet the culture, which remained Christian only in its roots, chose what was thought of as a transitional moment as a form of permanent existence. The existence of an individual “in itself” is called self and is opposed not only to the generic existence of the individual, but also personalities. At the same time, for many, even within cultures of Christian origin, there is a certain lack of differentiation, vagueness of concepts, confusion of “personality” and “self.” However, the distinction between these concepts is not at all an abstract philosophical question, but something that is urgently necessary for us in everyday life.

What are the origins of this confusion (or, more precisely, the persistence in this confusion)? This can be seen from the extreme points between which today's journalism is located. These two points are society and personality. Any unifying idea is considered to belong to society. Supporters of “personality” call for people to go “to their own kitchens”, to be content with the locality of their existence, and not to strive for any “social community”. We know how bad it was for the “individual” in the “collective”. But now we are already beginning to understand that the individual is bad even “in the kitchen” (now that the “kitchen” has already become a symbol of particularity and solitude, because once upon a time (so recently!) it was a symbol of community). The person there, it turns out, is lonely, he begins to feel some confusion, some optional own existence. And this is contraindicated for individuals.

The self is distinguished by the fact that it is simply unable to sense such optionality. Self - from “himself”, “most” - firstly, asserts its independence (in the sense of self-substantiation) and separateness and, secondly, superiority (most-most-most...). The self will not be especially infringed upon in a team - after all, there it is quite possible to maintain one’s isolation and superiority, for these qualities do not imply exclusivity at all; on the contrary, they presuppose precisely “inclusiveness”: in order to be “the very, very, very ...”, you need others to be like you, but only worse. That is, we need a common basis for comparison, inclusion in the general series.

The self will not get bored “in the kitchen,” because for it, the place where it is is the center of the universe, and it will try to make the universe revolve around this center. Yes, and there is no time to yearn, you have to be the very best (before this meant one thing, now it means another, but the essence of the self has not changed from this).

Personality (face, face, appearance...) is precisely what has exclusivity. Actually, personality is precisely what is exceptional in a person, what is characteristic only for him alone. We know about the vulnerability of the individual, about the vulnerability of otherness. But this indicates precisely the absence of delimitation. A vulnerable place is an unprotected, open place, a place where there are no boundaries, an entrance, a passage. The personality in a person is what suffers most from loneliness. And this is so understandable - after all, it is as long as the qualities are repeatable that people can be self-sufficient (and interchangeable!). It is the personality that breaks the illusion of interchangeability, but it is also the one who yearns, demanding inclusion, pointing out the need for community (precisely because of its exclusivity - after all this is not available anywhere else!).

But here’s the question again: inclusion – where? If the alternative is true: the collective is a separate existence, if a third is not given, then the personality in each of us is doomed to suffering, and most importantly, to the consciousness of his worthlessness and uselessness. Because the personality (unlike the triumphant self) cannot find justification either in itself or in the “unifying idea.” And the absolute value of a person cannot be established based on one or the other. Because in the first case, she is unique, but the only one splinter- and is inevitably doomed to destruction, and in the second case it is completely unnecessary, unnecessary (you can leave it if it does not interfere with the unifying idea, but if it suddenly interferes...).

But the alternative is not true. There is a third possibility - the possibility of universality, all-inclusiveness, when the meaning of absolute value is received not by “I”, not by “society”, but by “the world”, and necessarily by “the whole world”. Personality is what is included as a unique part in the universality of the world. Personality – that is, the uniqueness of everyone – is something without which it is not possible for this universality, this integrity to take place. This is what, without which there would be no whole world. That is, it won't the whole world, but there will be a flawed world, deprived of some part of itself. And since all parts- are unique, not interchangeable, then the world will be flawed forever. This is the only way to establish the absolute value of a person. And only in this inclusion in the whole of the personality is it good - for this is its place. And it is precisely this inclusion that the self hinders, forcing you to occupy not the only place that is characteristic of you, but the very best place, forcing you to enter into a struggle with that with which the personality seeks loving unity. Making you feel like you are not an irreplaceable part of the whole, where each part is irreplaceable, but a runner on a track, at the end of which there is a pedestal - and only three places, and the rest will be left behind.

Self and personality are not just different concepts and phenomena. These are concepts and phenomena opposite. And if the self is something that can and should be limited and overcome in oneself - in order to enable the existence of the personality (first of all, one’s own), then the personality cannot be limited (by its very nature - it strives for there to be no boundaries between her and others), she cannot be sacrificed - and, of course, not only “for her own sake.” This is another - restrictive - meaning of the second Gospel commandment: love your neighbor as yourself - no less; but also no more. This is not as unnecessary a limitation as it may seem. We somehow do not know how to observe moderation (and this is precisely measure), we either love less, crushing the other under ourselves, breaking his personality for the sake of our selfishness, or even more - and then we are ready to give up everything in ourselves, from what we can give up, and from what we cannot give up in no case - for the sake of the loved one’s self. But here we are told that the lover and the beloved, and everyone around us - equivalent, because their value is infinite for everyone, for the overall integrity of being. And one can only love God more than oneself - for He does not require renunciation of oneself, that is, one’s personality, but on the contrary, He requires a highly developed personality, for He is the basis and realization of integrity - just like it. We can say that personality is the place where God looks out of a person, or where into a person God looks, because each of us reflects some unique feature God's Face. The world is the mirror of the Lord, and it is clear that the image of God will be damaged if the world as a whole does not reach at least one of us. Personality - as opposed to the individual - is defined not in the horizontal of earthly created nature, but through the vertical, connecting the views of the soul and God. Only this vertical integrates the soul, which breaks up horizontally into countless “shadows” and “doubles.” Personality is again the open border of the isolated individual, a new root, rooting him no longer in earthly nature, but in heaven.

From here it is also clear that a person cannot infringe on another person - they may not coincide, “not lie” side by side - like fragments from different edges of a saucer (or mirror) - but this only means that they should not be together, but only – meet and smile at each other.

Closely related - and radically different in different cultures - concepts reality , life And death , being And existence , truth And appearances . The concept of reality seems to us to require no explanation, as a matter of course. Most often, we understand reality as something that can be bumped against; we recognize reality as an obstacle to our wills and desires, as the resistance of material, as something independent of us. This is to some extent expressed in the internal meaning of the word, if we assume that the word “reality” is derived from Lat. re- (prefix of reverse or repeated action) alius (other (in the sense of any other, another of many), which can be roughly translated as reverse or counteracting any other. But this can also be translated as and another one, in a collective sense, and then what will appear real before us is no longer a single thing, but something that manifests itself in all things, or precisely the totality of things. But re can also be understood as abl. ( instrumental case) to res (thing, object; world, universe, nature; actual position, essence, essence), and then “reality” can be read as “another thing”, “another nature”, “another world”.

Extremely many cultures perceived and perceive reality as what we not given in everyday existence, as something opposite to it, opposing existence being. Being is a reality that is not directly accessible to us, hidden by existence, like a thing with a veil (hence the famous Hindu and Buddhist “veil of Maya”), or casting existence as its shadow. Genesis – true, existence is only appearance. The famous Russian philosopher and poet, Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900), wrote about it this way:

Dear friend, don’t you see,

That everything we see

Only a reflection, only shadows

From the invisible to the eye.

Dear friend, don’t you hear?

That everyday noise is crackling -

Only the response is distorted

Triumphant harmonies?

(Vl. Soloviev. “Dear friend, don’t you see...”, 1892)

We can say that this is a poetic variation on the theme of the most famous text in the history of European culture, speaking about the relationship between existence and being, about a reality that is far from reducible to the area of ​​our everyday experience - Plato’s “Symbol of the Cave” (427–347 BC .) (this text opens the seventh book of his “State” (here given in translation by A.N. Egunov)):

“After this,” I said, “you can liken our human nature in terms of enlightenment and ignorance to this state... Imagine that people seem to be in an underground dwelling like a cave, where a wide opening stretches along its entire length. From an early age they have shackles on their legs and necks, so people cannot move, and they only see what is right in front of their eyes, because they cannot turn their heads because of these shackles. People have their backs turned to the light coming from the fire, which burns far above, and between the fire and the prisoners there is an upper road, fenced, imagine, with a low wall, like the screen behind which magicians place their assistants when they show dolls over the screen.

This is what I imagine,” said Glaucon.

So imagine that behind this wall other people are carrying various utensils, holding them so that they are visible over the wall; They carry statues and all sorts of images of living beings made of stone and wood. At the same time, as usual, some of the carriers talk, others are silent.

You paint a strange image and strange prisoners!

Like us. First of all, do you think that, being in such a position, people see anything, their own or someone else’s, except for the shadows cast by the fire on the cave wall located in front of them?

How can they see anything else, since all their lives they are forced to keep their heads still?

And what about the objects that are carried there, behind the wall? Isn't the same thing happening to them?

That is?

If the prisoners were able to talk to each other, do you think they would not consider that they are giving names to exactly what they see?

By Zeus, I don't think so.

Such prisoners would completely and completely accept the shadows of objects passing by as truth.

This is completely inevitable.

Observe their liberation from the shackles of unreason and healing from it, in other words, how all this would happen to them if something similar happened to them naturally.

When the shackles are removed from one of them, they force him to suddenly stand up, turn his neck, walk, look up - towards the light, it will be painful for him to do all this, he will not be able to look in the bright light at those things whose shadow he's seen it before. And what do you think he will say when they begin to tell him that before he saw trifles, but now, having approached existence and turned to something more genuine, he could acquire the correct view? Moreover, if they start pointing at this or that thing passing in front of him and force him to answer the question, what is it? Don't you think that this will be extremely difficult for him and he will think that there is much more truth in what he saw before than in what he is being shown now?

Of course he'll think so.

And if you force him to look straight at the light itself, won’t his eyes hurt and won’t he quickly turn away to what he can see, believing that this is really more reliable than the things that are shown to him?

Yes, that's true.

If someone forcibly drags him up a steep slope, up a mountain, and does not let him go until he brings him out into the sunlight, will he not suffer and be indignant at such violence? And when he came into the light, his eyes would be so amazed by the radiance that he could not see a single object of those whose authenticity he is now being told.

Yes, he couldn’t do it right away.

A habit is needed here, since he has to see everything that is up there. You need to start with the easiest thing: first look at the shadows, then at the reflections of people and various objects in the water, and only then at the things themselves; Moreover, it would be easier for him to see what is in the sky, and the sky itself, not during the day, but at night, that is, to look at the starlight and the Moon, and not at the Sun and its light.

Without a doubt.

And finally, I think, this person would be able to look at the Sun itself, located in his own region, and perceive its properties, not limiting himself to observing its deceptive reflection in water or in other environments alien to him.

Of course, this will become available to him.

And then he will conclude that both the seasons and the course of the years depend on the Sun, and that it controls everything in visible space, and that it is somehow the cause of everything that this man and other prisoners saw before in cave.

It is clear that he will come to this conclusion after those observations.

So how? Remembering his former home, the wisdom there and his fellow prisoners, will he not consider the change of his position a blessing and will he not feel sorry for his friends?

And even very much so.

And if they gave any honors and praise to each other there, rewarding the one who had the sharpest vision when observing objects passing by and remembered better than others what usually appeared first, what after, and what both at the same time, and on this basis predicted future, then do you think that one who has already been freed from bonds would thirst for all this, and would he envy those who are revered by the prisoners and who are influential among them? Or he would experience what Homer speaks of, that is, he would strongly desire

…. like a day laborer working in the field,

Serving a poor plowman to earn his daily bread

and rather endure anything, just not share the ideas of the prisoners and not live like them?

I think he would rather endure anything than live like this.

Consider also this: if such a person were to go down there again and sit in the same place, wouldn’t his eyes be covered in darkness at such a sudden departure from the light of the Sun?

Certainly.

What if he had to compete again with these eternal prisoners, sorting out the meaning of those shadows? Until his vision dulled and his eyes got used to it - and this would take a lot of time - wouldn't he seem ridiculous? They would say about him that he returned from his ascent with damaged eyesight, which means he shouldn’t even try to go up. And whoever would set about freeing the prisoners in order to lead them upward, wouldn’t they kill him if he fell into their hands?

They would definitely kill him.

So, my dear Glaucon, this comparison should be applied to everything that was said earlier: the area covered by vision is like a prison dwelling, and the light from the fire is likened in it to the power of the Sun. The ascent and contemplation of things on high is the ascent of the soul into the realm of the intelligible. If you allow all this, then you will comprehend my cherished thought - as long as you strive to know it, and God knows whether it is true. So, this is what I see: in what is knowable, the idea of ​​good is the limit, and it is difficult to discern, but as soon as it is discerned there, the conclusion suggests itself that it is precisely it that is the cause of everything right and beautiful. In the realm of the visible, she gives birth to light and its ruler, and in the realm of the intelligible, she herself is the mistress on whom truth and understanding depend, and anyone who wants to act consciously in both private and public life must look to her.

I agree with you, as far as I can tell.

Then be at the same time with me in this regard: do not be surprised that those who have come to all this do not want to engage in human affairs; their souls always strive upward. Yes, this is natural, since it corresponds to the picture painted above.

Yes, naturally"( Plato. Collected works in four volumes. T. 3. M., 1994. pp. 295–298).

Plato asserts the reality of ideas primarily before the reality of things, calling the latter merely a reflection of the idea in various environments alien to it. He explains, however, that these reflections (that is, things) are easier to see by people whose vision is clouded by the habitual darkness of their habitat (where they can only see the shadows of things) when these people first come into the light of ideas. Truth, therefore, is often accessible even to those people who strive to know it only in the form of appearances.

But for those who do not strive for knowledge (and these are the majority, because the aspiration for knowledge is associated with a number of severe hardships and inconveniences, because all the conditions of existence familiar to man are destroyed), so, for those who do not strive for knowledge, willingly remaining in the field usual, in general, only shadows from images are available, shadows of similarities, which they take for reality. Plato is very categorical in his symbol: in what is included in the realm of habitual human existence, there is no reality.

Deny the real in the obvious (while recognizing the truth in words about the obvious) will be a Buddhist. “Every time Monk Saigyo came, a conversation about poetry began. “I have my own view of poetry,” he said. – And I sing of flowers, the cuckoo, snow, the moon - in general, different images. But in essence, all this is one appearance that blinds the eyes and fills the ears. And yet the poems that are born to us, aren’t these True words? When you talk about flowers, you don’t think that they are actually flowers. When you chant the moon, you don't think that it is actually the moon. An opportunity presents itself, a mood appears, and poetry is written. A red rainbow falls, and the empty sky seems to be colored. But the sky by itself is not colored and is not illuminated by itself. So in our souls, like this sky, we color different things in different colors without leaving a trace. But only such poetry embodies the Truth of the Buddha” (Japanese dzuihitsu. St. Petersburg, “North-West”, 1998. P. 520 – 521).

It is characteristic that modern secular science will deny the real in the obvious (almost in the same words) (what appears to us as color is only of different wavelengths, what we hear as sound is only of different wavelengths), and poetry, insisted on the philosophy of the New Age (in in this case– on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant)

Far from another existence

Starry decorations...

And shuddering, I remember

About the illusory nature of space.

(Andrey Bely. Under the window // Urn. M., 1908)

Reading Plato’s text, it is impossible not to recall the esoteric interpretation of the myth of Narcissus that we have already discussed. The spirit is real beyond the world of forms, that is, beyond existence, in being. But when he, seduced by the opportunity to take form, to appear in the flesh, falls into existence, he finds himself imprisoned in an environment unusual for him, in darkness, he finds himself a prisoner of a cave, forgetting everything that is characteristic and inherent in him, and he sits chained to a bench, unable to even turn his head, imagining that this is real life. This is where the question arises, asked and positively resolved by so many cultures, a question that was formulated by the Greek tragedian Euripides (c. 480–407 or 406 BC): “Who knows, maybe life is death, and death is life "

If true existence is available to us only outside the world of forms, appearances, “the veil of maya,” and only to the extent that we are not involved in existence, are not subject to passions, which hold us, like weights in a swamp, in the material, if we enter true being only by freeing ourselves from attachments (“nirvana” in Buddhism literally means “extinction”, extinction of attachments), and if the main way for such entry into true being is inaction- then, in fact, life is death, and death is life.

Everything material is dust, it is fleeting in any of its forms, in any specific thing, only a single matter is eternal, flowing from form to form, like an ocean, only the play of forms on the surface of this ocean is eternal; everything that asserts itself as separately existing is mistaken in the most pitiful way, it will inevitably and indifferently be absorbed into the one; This, however, is the fate of the particles separated from the spirit, lost, stuck in matter: to merge again with a single spirit (but one can say - and to be absorbed by it).

Pavel Florensky (1882–1937; Russian mathematician, philosopher, theologian, priest) speaks about the philosophy of Ancient Greece: “The idea of ​​the “injustice of individual existence” and of death, as a process of returning to the primary common existence, was expressed in a more or less dismembered form was implied by many Greek philosophers, or, more precisely, by almost all of them. Apparently, it was fundamental in that complex ideological whole that reflected and excited the experience of the mysteries. It is very likely that this idea is of Eastern origin, although it could be quite autochthonous (from Greek. αυτόχθων – native, local origin. – T.K.), for the removal of personal limitations and the intoxicating delight of merging with all of existence, produced by the mysteries, is in itself sufficient to give birth to thoughts about the sinfulness of individual existence and the bliss, and therefore the primitive holiness of being outside oneself. Anaximander expresses this idea especially clearly: “...Untruth is isolation, mutual opposition, separation; truth triumphs in the destruction of everything that is separate, individual things return to their elements. But these latter are swallowed up by the infinite, in the depths of which countless worlds are born and destroyed” ( Pavel Florensky. Pillar and Statement of Truth. Experience of Orthodox feodicy in twelve letters. M., 1914. S. 654–655).

But if there is no truth in the world of forms, in individual things, if true existence consists in complete merging with some unity, in the loss of everything that makes “me” “me,” then why are we so painfully and tenderly attached to the doomed and fleeting? Is there absolutely no truth to this? Delight is caused by merging with “everything,” but there must be someone who is able to experience this delight? Or is this delight just the momentary rapture of the “dark abyss on the edge,” happiness before destruction, happiness achieved at the moment of dissolution of the fleeting into the eternal?

Pagan religions talk about the eternity of matter and the elements, an elemental material flow circling like a whirlwind behind the world of forms and creating with its whirling more and more new forms, destroying the old ones (ouroboros). The intoxicating delight of merging with everything in them is often understood as the delight of returning to chaos, the delight experienced from the crushing of forms that fetter the elements.

Dualistic religions (and this includes the esoteric teachings of many pagan religions) recognize the world of the spirit as transcendental (external) to the material world, and the material world is recognized in them as “evil life”, an aggressor that embraces the spirit, holding it, as in chains, as in a cage, not releasing the captured particles of the spirit, striving to return into their area of ​​the universe, seeking to reunite with the world of spirit.

Accordingly, the attitude of followers of such religions towards the material world is destructive; the material world, including their own body, which holds the spirit hostage, must, from their point of view, be destroyed by everyone possible ways- from extreme asceticism to extreme debauchery - to release the spirit from the cage. Extreme forms of debauchery and licentiousness were practiced in such religions as ways to overcome attachment to everything earthly; they had to be tried, so that later the liberated spirit would not fall into one of the traps of the flesh that beckons him, so that nothing earthly would confuse him. Whether the initiates indulged in asceticism or debauchery, the object of their search was the path beyond the scope of its existence.

However, as we have already mentioned, Christianity turns the “cage for the soul” into a “temple for the spirit” thanks to the dogma of the Incarnation. Christianity testifies that the Lord enters into a smoldering and decaying world, tearing apart and destroying itself, which has lost all reality, reuniting time with eternity, being with existence with His Christmas, making the seeming a guide to the true, returning life to the limits of life. In Christianity, the Lord incarnates on earth to disperse the darkness of illusions, becomes a Man in order to reveal the true dignity and reality of man, reunites eternity with time - so that time and what happens in it (fleeting!) gain reality, is born in the flesh to confirm the truth and value all flesh of this world.

Amazing reality Jesus man reality His dual nature, the unmerged and inseparable union of God with man in Him. It is not for nothing that Christianity fought so hard against the heresies that were born in it - monophysitism (lit. “one-nature”, which affirmed the presence only divine nature in Christ) and docetism (from the Greek δοκέω - it seems, which affirmed the illusory nature of the God-man; Christ, according to this teaching, only seemed human, His body only seemed corporeal): they reduced reality to the limit birth God-man to those present in all other religions phenomena gods (interestingly, one of the main sects of Monophysitism called themselves opponents imperishable-ghosts or fantasists, which marks the essence of deviation - from reality into fantasy, “imagination”). It is very significant that Buddhism, on the contrary, unlike Christianity, testifies to unreality incarnations of the Buddha as a “historical” person: Buddha’s preaching to people takes place in a “transformed [human] body [Nirmanakaya]”, and Nirmanakaya literally means “Phantom Body”, meaning “temporary manifestations of Buddhas at the level of human perception, for example Buddha Shakyamuni” ( Cm.: A.G. Fesyun. Buddhist esotericism // Kukai. Selected texts. M., 1999. S. 54, 71).

It is characteristic that Jesus (unlike, it seems, all other humanoid gods) never changed human nature (and, moreover, personal nature), did not turn into another thing in the world (and even into another person), thereby proving the truth, the reality of incarnation - after all, if this is a phenomenon, then you can change your appearance to any other - and, at the same time, “ capacity » human nature: to its God enough for implementation. This indicated that it is human nature that is God-like (from the time of the Fall - according to instructions), and it is precisely this that paves the way to salvation for all things in the world.

It is interesting to compare with what has been said O. Deschartes’ presentation of V. Ivanov’s views: “If it is human nature to ascend, then descent is by nature a divine act: it is reflected in different religions as a free revelation of the deity himself. But for the mystics of India, the reality of divine incarnations in the world does not exceed the reality of the world itself, does not overcome its illusory nature. In the Hellenic concept of Dionysus, the god descending from heaven gives himself to the world, and the world tears him to pieces and consumes him. Dionysus is born again, but the bodies in which the suffering god is clothed during his repeated earthly appearances are only transitory dwellings, a kind of conductor of divine energy; bodies, having transmitted it to the world, themselves dissolve in the world. "Palingenesis" [lit. “birth again”] promised by the Orphics, their rebirth of the dead is not at all a resurrection in our sense. The body is not saved; it serves only as a temporary container for the soul; the mask is the ritual idea of ​​Dionysianism, just as metamorphosis is its mythological expression. Christianity alone glorifies descent The Son of God and his κένωσις (exinanitio) [lit. “emptying”, “emptiness”, “exhaustion”] not as a repeated, insufficient act, but as a unique and final accomplishment. “It is finished,” pronounced by the God-man sacrificing Himself, elevates people to the rank of sons of God and saves the whole earth from the slavery of death” ( O. Deschartes. Introduction // Vyacheslav Ivanov. Collected works. T. 1. Brussels, 1971. P. 109).

As the poet Joseph Brodsky will say, from now on “death is life, but life is also life.” It can be said that Christianity is the only true materialism, for it affirms the truth not just of matter, but also of its “forms,” testifying to the resurrection in the body and the renewal of earth and heaven. Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh speaks about it this way: “Professor Frank, it seems, in one of his reviews said that the only true materialism is Christianity, because we believe in matter, that is, we believe that it has an absolute and final reality, we believe in the resurrection, we believe in a new heaven and a new earth, not in the sense that everything present will simply be completely destroyed, but that everything will become new; whereas an atheist does not believe in the fate of matter, it is a transitory phenomenon. Not in the sense that a Buddhist or Hindu views it, as Maya, as a cover that will disperse, but as an abiding reality that, as it were, devours its forms: I will live, then I will disperse into elements; the elements continue to be, I am not; but fate in some sense, movement somewhere is not visible for matter, there is no outcome" ( Anthony, Metropolitan of Sourozh. Man before God. Ed. "Pilgrim", 2000. P. 46).

In Christianity, Being does not destroy existence: on the contrary, through communication with Being, the constant presence of Being in existence, the fleeting things so dear to us are affirmed in eternity. “We cannot think about the Incarnation without bewilderment: how was it possible that human flesh, the matter of this world, collected in the body of Christ, could not only be the place of indwelling of the Living God - as happens, for example, in a temple - but unite with the Divinity So, as body is it permeated with Divinity and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father in eternal glory? Here all the greatness, all the significance of not only man, but the material world itself and its indescribable possibilities are revealed to us in secret - not only earthly and temporary, but also eternal, Divine. And on the day of the Transfiguration of the Lord we we see, with what light this material world of ours is called to shine, with what glory it is called to shine in the Kingdom of God, in the eternity of the Lord... And if we carefully and seriously take what is revealed to us here, we must change in the most profound way our attitude towards everything apparently, to everything tangible; not only to humanity, not only to man, but to his very body; and not only to human body, but to everything that is physically around us, tangible, tangible, visible... Everything is called to become a place of infusion of the grace of the Lord; everything is called once, at the end of time, to be absorbed into this glory and to shine with this glory"( Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Sermons. Second edition, expanded. Klin, 1999. P. 41).

So, outside of Christian experience, the temporal and the eternal are rigidly opposed as non-existence (existence) and being (Non-existence) - this opposition is removed by Christianity, and, obviously, this is where its original conflict with paganism lies. In this regard, we can recall the accusations of pagans against the first Christians: it was argued that Christians worshiped donkey's head(the donkey is a symbol of the flesh, the body; let us recall at least the “Golden Ass” by Apuleius (c. 125 – c. 180), which the young Pushkin eagerly read, and the famous “my brother donkey” - the appeal to his body by the great Catholic saint Francis of Assisi) . For pagans and Christians, the subject of dispute and accusation was clear, which often eludes us now due to the incomprehensibility of the symbol common to them. Christians were charged flesh worship, dead and corruptible flesh - they also testified to the reunification of the flesh of the whole world with Him from Whom it was torn off in the act of sin, oh enlightenment, salvation and resurrection of the flesh- and it was completely new and unacceptable in their teaching, while the pagan Sacraments have long testified to the posthumous existence of the soul. Christianity at a high price, at the cost of the Lord’s sacrifice, bestows substantiality on the fleeting.

One of the strangest and most wonderful words is the word freedom . In paganism, the concept of “free” is essentially equivalent to the concept of “man”. The "slave" is beyond "humanity". “Freedom” means existence within the corresponding culture and the corresponding cult. That is, freedom is a person’s being in the right place and in the right connection with the rest of the universe. Freedom is the correct inclusion in total causality (in essence, an almost similar definition of freedom was given by atheistic philosophy - “conscious necessity”). The “slave” is therefore “non-human” because he is forcibly torn out of culture and cult. The admission of slaves to the mysteries in the ancient world undermines the very concept of slavery. But only Christianity introduces the concept of freedom as personal self-determination, internal self-determination, which denies the importance of a person’s external state (“there is neither slave nor free” (Gal. 3:28)), for from now on no external influence can tear a person away from God. Christianity confirms what paganism vaguely and distortedly remembered - a person is a person because he is free. If for a pagan and an atheist freedom - right place within a network of relationships, then Christianity creates a person free from any horizontal relationships - as long as he is affirmed by a vertical relationship.

Freedom is the only thing that makes a person human—the image and likeness of God in him; the similarity that has now been lost - and that is why the longing for freedom and the thirst for it are so strong; an indestructible image - and therefore in the most deaf and hopeless slavery (whoever enslaved a person: another person, his own lusts and passions, external circumstances: troubles and illnesses, or, on the contrary, luxury and comfort, dragging him into a quagmire, entangling his hands and legs with fear of loss or melancholy and boredom), so, in the most hopeless slavery, a person feels, despite all evidence, that he is free, and that if only he decides to realize his freedom, no one and nothing can stop him.

At the same time, however, Christianity warns: freedom is not self-will, just as personality is not selfhood. Freedom is achieved by renouncing self-will, just as personality is achieved by renouncing selfhood. Freedom for a Christian is walking in the will of God.

What does this strange situation mean: we are free whenever we submit to the will of God? Are we free as long as we submit to the will of God? Many people immediately ask the question: what kind of freedom is this if you have to obey something or Someone? And here everything depends on the “picture” that appears in the mind behind these paradoxical, at first glance, words - “freedom in submission.” We suddenly, as a rule, imagine such a bright clearing, a “garden of paradise pleasures”, where we would frolic, enjoying all the pleasures provided, but for some reason some will forbids us these pleasures on grounds unclear to us. And then, indeed, it becomes completely unclear, what kind of freedom is there if there is subordination? But let’s imagine a different picture (and here again we encounter the same double possibility of perceiving the world - as a place or as a path - which has already served as the basis for so many differences in pagan religions and revealed religions). Let's imagine that we are walking along a narrow road, on the sides of which there are fishing holes and traps, covered from an inattentive glance with all sorts of tempting baits. And then it becomes clear that we will remain free exactly as long as we obey a will that demands that we not touch these baits. With such a picture, it is absolutely clear that freedom exists only when we remain in obedience and submission. Any way out of submission immediately draws us into one or another trap or trap, which subordinates our further actions to strict necessity for a long time.

The final missing pages from Egyptian priest Amenhotep's supposedly "magical" Book of the Dead have been discovered after a century-long search at a museum in Queensland.

British museum employee, Egyptologist Dr. John Taylor claims that he discovered about 100 fragments of an ancient book. This puts an end to the worldwide archaeological search for an ancient scripture that allegedly contains spells with the power to send spirits to the afterlife.

The Book of the Dead is an Egyptian manuscript, up to 20 meters long, containing magical spells written on papyrus that were used by temple servants commissioned by the relatives of the dead to guide their souls into the afterlife.

These parts of the papyrus, which were kept in the museum all this time, form the missing part of a very large, according to many historians and archaeologists, historically valuable “Book of the Dead”.

Sections of this precious manuscript are scattered all over the world, and now, after a hundred years of searching, the missing parts have been found in a museum.

The Amenhotep manuscript is of particular significance because it is one of the earliest examples of a manuscript that has several unusual features. In total, only four or five copies of this manuscript have been found.

It contains images of a five-pointed star and solar disks. Now John Taylor plans to try to collect fragments of the manuscript in electronic form at the Queensland Museum.

In his opinion, reuniting the manuscript is an incredibly important and painstaking job, and he hopes to glue the fragments together to find out exactly what secrets it holds. This could make a significant contribution to helping the world better understand one of the most fascinating and complex civilizations of the ancient world.

"Book of the Dead" a collection of Egyptian hymns and religious texts placed in a tomb with the goal of helping the deceased overcome the dangers of the other world and find well-being in the afterlife. It is a series of 160-190 (in different variations) unrelated chapters of varying length, ranging from long poetic hymns to one-line magical formulas. The name “Book of the Dead” was given by the Egyptologist R. Lepsius, but it would be more correct to call it "Book of Resurrection", since its Egyptian name is “ Rau well paret em heru” literally translated as “Chapters about going out into the light of day.”

This work was considered very ancient even during the reign of Semti, the pharaoh of the 1st dynasty, and, moreover, it was then so voluminous that it required reduction, was repeatedly rewritten and supplemented from generation to generation for almost 5 thousand years, and any pious Egyptian lived, constantly referring to the teachings of the Book of the Dead; Egyptians were buried according to her instructions; their hope for eternal life and happiness was based on faith in the effectiveness of her hymns, prayers and spells.

Horus and Anubis weighing the heart of the deceased

Some of the best examples of the Book of the Dead, written on papyrus scrolls, date back to the height of culture during the 18th dynasty; with its beginning, this work entered a new stage of its development; funerary texts were transferred from sarcophagi to papyri. The largest number of papyri with texts from the Book of the Dead was found in the burials of the city of Thebes; It is for this reason that the version of the Book of the Dead that became widespread during this period is called Theban.

Most of them were found in Theban tombs and belonged mainly to priests and members of their families. These papyri are richly decorated with exquisite drawings depicting scenes of burial, funeral rituals, posthumous trials and other scenes associated with the mortuary cult and ideas about the afterlife.

Of particular interest to researchers is the 125th chapter, which describes the posthumous trial of Osiris over the deceased. At the trial, the deceased turns to Osiris, and then to each of the 42 gods, justifying himself in a mortal sin that one or another god was aware of. The same chapter contains the text of the acquittal speech:

Glory to you, great God, ruler of mutual truth. I have come to you, my lord. You have brought me to contemplate your beauty. I know you, I know your name, I know the names of the 42 gods who are with you in the palace of mutual truth, who live, lying in wait for the evil ones and feeding on their blood on the day of reporting before the face of the Good. Here I have come to you, Lord of truth; I brought the truth, I drove away the lies. I did not do injustice to people. I did no harm. I did not do what is an abomination to the gods. I didn't kill. He did not reduce the bread in the temples, did not reduce the food of the gods, did not extract funeral gifts from the dead. I did not reduce the grain measures, did not reduce the length measures, did not violate the field measures, did not increase the weights, did not tamper with the arrows of the scales. I'm clean, I'm clean, I'm clean, I'm clean.

There is also a Sait version of the Book of the Dead, which appeared as a result of the activities of the pharaohs of the XXVI dynasty, when there was a general revival of ancient religious and funerary traditions, temples were restored, and the old texts of the Book of the Dead were rewritten, revised and ordered.

novostiua.net

After the death of a person, all his shells (Ka, Ba, Eb, Ah) were separated from the body (Sah) and left it for 70 days. While on earth the paraschites and embalmers were turning Sakh into a mummy, the energy shells wandered in the airy above-ground space, rose to the higher spheres, and reached the Moon, Planets and the Sun.

During this period, the Ka soul returns to its body from time to time and monitors the correct performance of all rituals by relatives and embalmers. Otherwise, the Ka of the deceased will be insulted and turn into an evil spirit-double (ghost), who will forever haunt his family, sending disasters to the heads of his descendants.

After death, the soul-Ba left the body-Soh and, flying out through the mouth, flew to the Eye of Ra, that is, to the Sun, where it remained for all 70 days, until the day of the funeral. At this time, the priests performed the ritual of searching for the Eye of Udjat.

Mummy funeral

After 70 days, the final burial of the mummy took place. The funeral procession, accompanied by sorrowful groans and crying, crossed the Nile and landed on the western bank.

There the procession was led by priests of the funeral cult in the robes and masks of the gods of the Duat. The procession approached the grave or rock crypt. At the entrance to the eternal refuge, the coffin was placed on the ground, and the “gods of the Duat” performed the “opening of the mouth” ritual over the mummy.

Touching a rod with a tip in the form of a ram's head to the lips of the face of Osiris depicted on a wooden coffin returned the deceased his soul-Ba and created his Ah.

The deceased regained the ability to eat, drink, and most importantly, speak. After all, he will have to call many names and pronounce many spells along the way through Kingdom of the Dead to the Majestic Temple of Two Truths, and there to give a speech at the Afterlife Court.

Having completed the ritual of “opening the mouth,” the priests took the coffin to the tomb and placed it in a stone sarcophage. Canopic chambers were placed near the walls of the burial chamber: Imset with the liver in the southern one, Hapi with the lungs in the northern one, Duamutef with the stomach in the eastern one, and Kebekhse-nufa with intestines in the western one.

Amulets and figurines of the air god Shu were placed in the burial chamber so that the deceased would not suffocate in the Afterlife. Four amulets were placed in the walls to drive away evil spirits from the deceased, and four lights were lit. Then the door of the crypt was sealed with the seal of the necropolis, filled with blocks and covered with crushed stone.

The second birth of man

Returned to their Sah, the souls Ka, Ba, Eb and Akh ensured the magical Resurrection of the deceased. The resurrection, the “second birth” of the deceased, was facilitated by the amulets of the scarab and the Eye of Udjat.

All goddesses associated with childbirth (Isis, Hathor, Renenutet, BES, Taurt, Meschent and Heket) took part in the second birth of the deceased.

Having been resurrected, the deceased came to the Gate of the House of Osiris, the First of the Western (Khente-Amente), at which he had to call by name and say the spells of the guard, gatekeeper and herald. Their names were respectively: “He who watches the fire”, “He who bows his face to the earth, having many faces” and “Giver of voices”.

Having passed these Gates, the deceased emerged onto two winding paths, separated by the Lake of Fire with capes and bays, where monsters, evil spirits and other disasters lay in wait for him. Only initiates who knew the spells and names of all dangers could walk along the path past the lake. The uninitiated became prey to evil spirits and lost their Sakh.

Along the way, the deceased had to cross 14 hills, symbolizing the 14 souls-Ka of the god Ra. Ignorance of the names and spells of any deity on any of the hills led to the loss of the deceased’s soul-double (Ka). This again involved the soul-Ka in the circle of earthly incarnations.

The seven arit shelters symbolized the 7 souls-Ba of the god Ra. Only those who knew the names of the guards, gatekeepers, and heralds of each of the 7 refuges could enter the arita. Someone who did not remember names and spells could lose his soul in one of the refuges, which remained there until the next incarnation.

Since each shelter had three protective deities, there were, accordingly, three pylons with gates. Only someone who remembered all the names and spells could pass 21 pylons.

Hall of the Afterlife Court

Only after having passed all the above obstacles, the energy shells of Ka, Ba, Eb, Ah of the deceased reached the hall of the Afterlife Court of the Majestic Hall of the Two Truths. Entering the central nave of this Hall also required knowledge of the names of the guard, the gatekeeper, the herald, the spells of the gate, doors, jambs, bolts and even the floor.

Entering the central nave of the Hall, the deceased presented himself to the god Ra and the gods present who administered the Afterlife Judgment.

Among the gods there were certainly the gods of the Great Host (Ra, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Horus, Isis, Nephthys, Hathor, Set, the god of the divine will Hu and the god of reason Sia) and the gods of the Small Host (42 gods, according to the number of regions-nomes Egypt). The deceased made a speech of acquittal before each of the hosts.

The collection of gods included the Great Ennead of Heliopolis, that is, the “nine,” which included Ra-Atum and eight gods originating from Atum: Shu and Tefnut, Geb and Nut, Nephthys and Set, Isis and Osiris; Memfi Triad: Ptah, Sekhmet and Nefertum; The Great Ogdoad, that is, the “eight” of gods who personified the elements: male deities with the heads of frogs and their female couples with the heads of snakes - Huh and Hauket, Nun and Naunet, Amon and Amaunet, Kuk and Kauket; Small Ennead (42 gods).

Having said a greeting to Ra and the gods, the deceased in his “confession of denial” renounced all sins. He listed 42 sins and swore to the gods that he had not committed them and was not guilty.

Meanwhile, the gods Thoth and Anubis weighed the soul-consciousness (Eb) of the deceased on the Scales of Two Truths. Eb was placed on one bowl, and the feather of the goddess of justice Maat on the other. If the deceased lied, denying his sin, the scales pointer was rejected. If the scales of the scales remained in balance, the deceased was recognized as “right-speaking.”

After confessing the denial of all sins, the deceased had to turn to the Small Host of gods, name each of the 42 gods by name and make a “second acquittal speech.”

When the interview ended, the guardian spirit Shai, the goddess Meskhent, the goddess of good fate Renenutet and the manifestation soul of the deceased Ba came forward. They testified to the character of the deceased, his good and evil thoughts, words and deeds.

The goddesses Nephthys, Nephthys, Isis and Serket the scorpion gave an acquittal speech in defense of the deceased.

Taking into account the results of weighing the soul-Eb by Thoth and Anubis, the evidence of the soul of the deceased, the arguments of the accusers Meschent, Shai, Renenutet and the defenders of Isis, Nephthys and Neith, the Great Ennead rendered a verdict.

Proclamation of the verdict

If the verdict was guilty, then the heart of the deceased was given to the terrible goddess Amma (“the Devourer”), a monster with the body of a hippopotamus, lion paws and the mane and mouth of a crocodile. If the verdict was not guilty, all the shells of the deceased were sent to the Holy of Holies of the Temple of the Two Truths, to the throne of Osiris.

The deceased kissed the threshold, blessed parts of the door and nave of the Shrine, and appeared before Osiris, who was seated surrounded by Isis, Nephthys, Maat, the clerk Thoth and the four sons of Horus in a lotus flower.

He announced the arrival of the deceased, cleansed of all sins and canonized. Having spoken mercifully with the newcomer, the gods sent him to the Abode of Eternal Bliss (Field of Reeds, or Field of Satisfaction) accompanied by the guardian spirit Shai. The path to the abode of the blessed spirits (Ah) was blocked by the last Gate, which had to be called by name and the spells of the guardian god should be pronounced.

What do trials symbolize?

From the point of view of the initiate, the essence of these allegorical descriptions is as follows.

Overcoming the First Gate of the House of Osiris means final death, while the inability to pass them implies either an exit from clinical death, or a state of torpor, coma or lethargic sleep. This is a barrier only for the body-Sakh and soul-Ka; other souls easily overcome this limit.

First series of tests(two Paths near the Lake of Fire) had as its goal either to return the soul-body (Sakh) of the deceased to the circle of earthly incarnations, or to rid him of them. The dangers and monsters that take possession of Sakh symbolize the return of Sakh to the earthly world, that is, the acquisition of a new body. Successful completion of the Paths frees Sakh from a new incarnation in physical form.

Second series of tests(14 hills and their deities) aims to determine the future fate of the Ka shell (soul-individuality). Failure to pass these tests plunged the Ka soul into a new incarnation on Earth in a certain month in the form of a male or female being. Successfully passing 14 hills saved Ka's soul from returning to the earthly vale.

Third series of tests(7 arit and 21 pylons) was intended to decide the fate of the soul-manifestation of Ba. If the souls of the deceased failed to enter any of the refuges, then the soul of Ba remained in the previous arita. She was doomed to inhabit something material on one of the seven sacred luminaries (Sun-Earth, Moon-Earth, Saturn, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury and Mars). Successful completion of 7 arits freed the soul-Ba from inhabiting bodies on the planets.

Fourth test(The Afterlife Judgment, the weighing of the soul-Eb, that is, consciousness, self-awareness and superconsciousness-cause) determined the fate of three energy shells, including the shell of fate (what today is designated by the concept of “karma”).

Allegorical devouring the soul-heart(Eb) by the monster Amma means the return of the soul Eb to the circle of transmigration of souls, most likely, the union of this soul with the souls Ba, Ka and Sah who lagged behind at the previous stages of testing.

Successful login in the Holy of Holies of the Temple of Two Truths marks the deification of the deceased, the likening of his spirit (Ah) to the blessed spirits of the gods (the same Ah). The spirit can remain among the related spirits of the Host of Gods and become an accomplice in their existence.

If the spirit Ah has overcome the Last Gate on the way to the Field of Satisfaction, then it will find eternal bliss, will no longer experience the torment of transmigration from body to body, and will be freed from the suffering of incarnation.

It seems that the Egyptian initiates also indicated the exact habitat of the blessed souls - the Sun. The “mystical experience” allowed them to express this daring truth, something that European science will not soon dare to do (if it dares at all?).

The return of human energy shells, resulting from the refraction and transformation of the same solar radiation, to their original source is not yet subject to scientific proof. Despite the fact that for almost a century empirical science has been aware of the phenomenon of solar energy, transformed on Earth into other types of energy, as the basis for the existence and development of not only the general circulation of the atmosphere, the water regime of land and sea, but all organic nature, the experimental study of this phenomenon is still tramples around the notorious “biofields” and does not dare to approach the innermost secret of the “spirit”.

This is the ancient Egyptian concept of the posthumous fate of souls, striking in its complexity and detailed elaboration. Its creators could only be great initiates.

Egyptian folk ideas about the afterlife

Egyptian folk ideas about what kind of life awaited the deceased in the Field of Reeds have nothing to do with the priestly mystical experience. What we have before us is a truly primitive description of the afterlife as a happier version of the earthly one.

It was impossible to expect anything else, because no great initiate could verbally express the state that the holy spirits achieve in eternal bliss. No human language, neither allegorically, nor by analogy, nor even approximately, is able to convey those sensations, feelings and thoughts that the spirit-Ah experiences in the Abode of Eternal Bliss. Only parables are possible about the ineffable. One of these parables is the description of the Field of Reeds.

There, the deceased supposedly awaits the same life as he led on Earth, only freed from suffering and troubles, happier and better. His spirit will lack nothing. Seven Hathor, the grain god Nepri, the scorpion-Serket and other gods will make his arable land and pastures extremely fertile, his herds fat, his birds numerous and fat. All work in the fields will be performed by Usheb workers. Thus, millions of years of blissful existence of the spirit-Ah will pass in satiety, contentment, love pleasures, singing and dancing. This down-to-earth ideal clearly appealed to the common people and slaves, and the initiates did not seek to refute it or offer their own version.

[…] Mortuary literature from all times of Egyptian history, even quite “lower” ones, says that the soul-double Ka of the deceased does not consume the funeral offerings themselves, but is saturated with their double souls. The ka of the deceased eats not bread, but the ka of bread; he drinks not beer, but the ka of beer. The soul-manifestation Ba and the soul-heart Eb are generally satisfied not with funeral offerings and gifts from relatives, loved ones and friends, but with their pious and unhypocritical memory, care for the deceased, their ritual purity and the absence of evil intent.