Log in

No account? Create an account
18 August 2008 @ 02:55 pm
On This Whole "Question of Nisut"  
     Somewhere in the wilds of the Internet, I encountered a web article or forum post regarding the "Question of Nisut". Whoever wrote it was basically aligning their argument with the HoN, because it presented the concept of "Nisut"--which, btw, is the Egyptian word for "king"--as something critical to Kemetic faith.
      Is it? Do we really need a "king" just to have a faith?
      I could answer this with two words--"Hell, no"--but that wouldn't be enough. Insisting on slavish reconstruction to the point of appointing a divine ruler is ignorant of history itself, as well as the possibilities that exist right now in front of us. Let's see what's being overlooked.
     Oh, and as an aside: I make no apologies for using the word "Pharaoh" to refer to ancient Egyptian kings. Yes, our modern spelling comes from Hebrew, and the Arabic word firaun is very similar, but they both are derivations of per a'ah, or "Great House", which was an old Egyptian title for the king. So don't take anyone's crap about saying "Pharaoh", because I certainly won't.
     During the height of the Egyptian state, namely during the Old Kingdom/Pyramid Age and again during the New Kingdom/Age of Empire, the office of Pharaoh was certainly seen as the central pillar of social order. In these periods of stability the king's image was everywhere. He was the guarantor of an ordered universe. Hymns were sung in his name and offerings dedicated through his auspices. But what about the periods of decline in Egyptian society, especially during the Late Period? What did the people do when the king was weak, and his power ineffectual? Did they stop worshipping the Netjeru just because their official intercessor couldn't help them? Or what about the periods when the king was overthrown? When the Persians conquered Egypt a second time in the 300's BCE, did the people give up faith?
     Of course they didn't!  We have ample proof; the best example would be the inscription records left in the tomb of Petosiris. He was a high priest from a priestly family who oversaw the re-organization and rebuilding of several temples in the wake of the Persian conquest. His monuments name no kings, and Petosiris himself took on roles formerly held by the Pharaoh in overseeing Stretching of the Chord ceremonies to begin new temple construction. Clearly, he didn't sit there and say, "We have to name a new king in order to start our church again!" Instead, he took the initiative to do what he could for his community in his traditional role as a priest. And his legacy survives right down to our time. 
     This is the Age of Information. The age of living, divine kings is over; if you think about it, that day ended in August 1945 when Emperor Hirohito of Japan renounced his status as a god on live Japanese radio. Do we want to go back to that? Have we learned nothing of those hard lessons?
     Besides, the true kings of Kemet are still with us. Again, looking to history as our guide, the Pyramid Texts and the Books of the Underworld tell us that the Pharaohs joined the entourage of Ra upon their deaths. They became members of the divine family, and the ancient people of Egypt prayed to them and asked for their intercession. The deceased Pharaohs even had their own memorial temples staffed with priests. In fact, King Amunhotep I was regarded as a patron saint of sorts by the villagers of Deir el-Medina; during their own Opet processions that were held in the town, the enshrined statue of Amunhotep I actually took the place of Amun!
In life, the Pharaohs were still human, and had human limits. They couldn't see to everyone, and they couldn't officiate at every temple--that's why priests were appointed in the first place! But in the Duat, sailing in Ra's barque, they could watch over everyone. 
     So why do we need to elevate someone to a role that held such awesome responsibilities and burdens which none of us can truly fathom? Why should we seek to, in effect, replace the true Nisuts of old? The Kemetic faith will live on, and so will its ancient kings. We do a greater service to them by acknowledging what foundations they built, and by bringing their faith into the modern era without trying to re-invent it. We have our Nisuts: Seneferu, Khufu, Senwosret, Amunhotep, Akhenaton, Tutankhamun, Seti, Rameses. We don't need a pale imitation of true greatness. 
Current Mood: contemplativecontemplative
Sab Saitihmtanpu on August 23rd, 2008 01:51 pm (UTC)
I've often wondered the same thing. From my personal experience, I feel the Neteru aren't too happy with it either, and the Kings are definitely not amused....

I might see if differently if I held any respect for the woman at all. But personally, I can't get past her denial of being worshiped and then being known as "her holiness" and whatnot with capitals reserved for royalty and Gods. *sneers*

The only thing I am certain of is she will have quite a bit to explain in the Hall of Two Truths.
(Deleted comment)
tut2k9tut2k9 on September 24th, 2008 05:45 pm (UTC)
Absolutely. In fact, this is something I found while surfing Google cache--a co-founder of Per Ankh said this about HoN:

"...Well take a look at how the rites they have chosen to make central to their temple flow so naturally from this and all serve to concentrate religious experience in and through the center-- the mediator-- the Nisut:

1. Divination ---
2. Naming --
3. Coronation renewal major event of retreats
4. Special Oaths of loyalty and even willingness to die for the leader required as a step to the level before Priesthood
5.Saq viewed as ABSOLUTE word of Netjer not mediated by the person in Saq

(Side note: though in recent years they have been saying partly divine almost implying her humanity and divinity can be separated at times I have letters from their leader denying that she ever speaks as anything other than the Nisut and that her shemsu should always hear their parents voice in her voice because she is always in a sort of saq of their parent Netjer)

All in all I see in all this a strong atmosphere of a sort of attitude and level of control that could only be justified by the idea that Tamara Suida is divine...."

Pretty scary, folks. In fact, this is such a red flag, I may post it as a thread on its own later. How many people would want to be part of this if they knew ahead of time what they were getting into?