So, let us see where we stand. We can be relatively sure that "real names" for at least some of "The Names of Netjer" (eg. Ptah) can't be defined by any intrinsic quality of man or God, or by the consequences of any purely human experience. What is left?

An apologist for John's point of view might argue, that one is left with the fact that this argument glosses over the distinction between the general and the specific. "Suppose", he might say, "purely for the sake of discussion, that some of the "Names of Netjer" did hold sway over all of the Universe, yes, under a variety of names. Let us say that they have been in existence, and active in the Cosmos since before the creation of Earth itself. Can one legitimately conclude from this that all of these aspects of God would enjoy the same Cosmic stature, or antiquity, for that matter? How can one possibly justify such a leap?" How would one know that Sekhmet was a Cosmic, as opposed to a merely terrestial 'deity'? If she is the latter, then why would the inability of our hypothetical aliens to speak her name be of philosophical interest?

Indeed, one might, as a counterexample, point to the 'goddess' Bat, who has long since been assimilated into Hethert. Conversely, Sekhmet herself has become seperated from Hethert, with whom she was once identified, in Historical times. This speaks against the view that the netjeru or "Names" must necessarily be eternal, without beginning or end, even if their existence should be objective, even if Netjer Itself should be eternal in this sense.

Note : Let the enthusiastic Kemetic tread with caution on this point. By adopting this alternative hypothesis as his position, he will be discarding on of the stronger arguments that Kemetic Orthodoxy has for adopting monolatry (the belief that the different 'gods' or 'netjeru' are merely aspects of a single deity) in an Egyptian Reconstructionist context: chains of identification.

Question : "Why would that be true?"
. Answer : . click here

Such a view offers no inherent self-contradiction. From the point of view of the Shrine, it even seems familiar, to an extent. Imagine the characters in one of your dreams. In a sense, they are distinct individuals, each with his (or her) own motivations, though, at its core, each of these "individuals" is really you, merely you seen through a different filter. Before the dream begins, they do not exist, and when the dream ends, they will dissolve away, presumably melting back into the small 'psychic sea' that is one's own subconscious, only to be replaced by a new cast of characters the next night. Even so, you, who all of these characters are, though they are not you in your entirety, existed long before the dream, and, let us hope, will exist long after it. Perhaps such could be the nature of the relationship between Netjer and the netjeru, should these exist, new netjeru coming into existence in one way or another, as older netjeru fade away or are absorbed, though the Mind which contained them all would neither come into existence, nor leave it.

Very well, then, I freely grant that this is a reasonable hypothesis. I would be in a weak position to do otherwise, as I have suggested that this sort of relationship might exist between the historically recognized aspects of each of the Olympians, and the noumenal deities (discussed elsewhere). Even so, this theory will still not allow Kheru a route of escape. Mythology stands in his way.

"How so?", the reader will ask. "The concept of multiple levels of divinity existing is hardly unknown. Look at Zoroastrianism, as it developed, in which we have deities worshipping deities above them. Look at Hellenism itself, in which Zeus stands in the position of supplicant, when dealing with the Fates, or Moros". This, I respond, is exactly the point. Sekhmet would be dealing with beings of cosmic significance on far too equal of a footing for such a lesser status for her to make sense, were our current alternative hypothesis (under consideration) correct. Sekhmet couldn't be merely local.

The reader, perhaps, will recall the legend that explains the origin of the name "Sekhmet" (ie. "powerful female"), alluded to in her listing in the glossary over at the House of Netjer. In the story, mankind his risen in rebellion against Ra. Sekhmet (nee Hethert, aka Hathor) is sent out to punish humanity for its sins, and fights with such ferocity that Ra himself fears that the entire species will be wiped out. He appeals to Sekhmet to show mercy, and let some remain alive. Sekhmet is too consumed with fury to relent. So, a strategem is devised. Jars of beer blended with pomengranate juice are set out for her. Thinking that these are filled with blood, she drinks them all, and is soon too pleasantly drunk to think of anything, except perhaps of how pleasant it would be to find more of that pomengranate beer. Humanity is saved, and a light-hearted religious festival is born.

The story may well have been told half in jest, but it still speaks to the historical perception of Sekhmet by her worshippers. What is telling, in this story, is the relationship between Sekhmet and Ra. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Sekhmet was a purely terrestial divinity, and Ra was not. Would Ra have felt such a level of concern, at the thought that he might not be able to restrain her? This would be like pharoah worrying about the rage of a local ruler. Can one imagine one of the great lords of any kingdom dealing in such a fearful fashion, with a mere village elder?

The earth is but a flyspeck, even in its own galaxy, which is but a flyspeck in the Cosmos. Let us note that when Ra becomes old and weak, the other netjeru don't hesitate to plot his overthrow. The message is clear: the weaker netjer wouldn't retain a domain on a cosmic scale, while the stronger one satisfied himself with a far more humble status, because the latter would not accept this, except, perhaps, to the extent required by the duties of one family member to another. Even in that area, given the disturbing willingness members of the past Pharoahnic families showed, to plot against each other, one might well wonder just how much filial piety would matter among the netjeru, were the pharoahs/nisuts actually the incarnations of Heru, as the House of Netjer maintains. If one incarnation of the 'god of justice' can do such things to another, and Heru accepts this, then what can be hoped for out of the other netjeru? One is left to conclude that in the Kingdom of the Netjeru, as in earthly kingdoms, it is the great lord who holds the vast domain, while it is the lesser who satisfies himself with less, becoming a merely local ruler.

Were Sekhmet merely a terrestial deity, while Ra one whose authority reached over the entire Universe, then she would be as a village elder, while Ra would be as the great lord, in the preceding analogy. A great lord must appear great. To him is charged the maintenance of order, where he rules. If he is weak in spirit, he can't do his job properly. Quite rightly, others will desire his removal, and replacement with one who can do his job. By appearing weak, he will encourage them to act on their desire. One who provides enough encouragement in this area, will not remain a lord, great or otherwise, for very long.

Let us be clear that the point here, is not that Ra used his wits, rather than brute force. To do so is the mark of a good ruler. What is significant, is that he seemed uncertain of his ability to control Sekhmet's actions. Such doubts would not be appropriate in a great lord, when he dealt with one whose status was not even remotely comparable to his own. Ra, at this point in the story, seems to be anything but a fool, so he would surely realize this universal truth. One must conclude that given the rest of our hypothesis under discussion, that Sekhmet would have to have a stature comparable to that of Ra, which is not to say one equal to his. If he is name of Netjer, through the Cosmos, or at least much of it, then Sekhmet must be as well, bringing us back to the "true name" pronouncability issue, raised before. (Why does the name have such a human sound to it?)

"Very well", then, one might respond, "but how does one know that Ra would be of such a stature? He is identified with our sun, which speaks to a more local, terrestial role - our sun is barely visible, from even 18 light years away. It is hardly of cosmic significance. Yes, in our stories, in our world, he is the ruler of the netjeru. Does it follow, that he would be so in all other worlds as well? One might well have an arrangement in which one netjer rules in one world, the other netjeru deferring to him in matters purely regarding that world, and in another, one of the other netjeru rules, and the others defer to him in matters regarding that world. Who is the 'liege' and who is the 'vassal' might well depend on where one is, at the time." Perhaps so. The relationship between ruler and ruled is not necessarily one of master and slave, but may be one of well-defined mutual, contractual obligations.

Certainly, it was so in Europe, under feudalism. Consider the situation prior to the Hundred Years War between England and France, in which the King of England reigned supreme, in England, and yet, in holding title as the Duke of Normandy, was a vassal of the King of France, in matters relating to France. Had the King of France then acquired holdings in England, he would, in matters relating to England, have been the vassal of the King of England - some would have said, "his vassal's vassal". That duties and rights are as compartmentalized as they are, explains why this seeming non-transitivity of domination (the ruler's ruler doesn't necessarily rule) poses no logical dilemma.

Now that we've worked so hard at making John's case for him, let us tear it apart. Given what we've just acknowledged, how can we maintain that Kheru's position is untenable? Answer : because this argument forgets about Ptah, who we've already acknowledged must be of Cosmic stature, if our alternative hypothesis under discussion is to be true. A ruler will feel no hesitation about sending out those under his rule to do his bidding, even those who are so, only in a local sense. This is what rulers do. Ptah, at the time of this story, is certainly Ra's subject, at least in a terrestial context. Ra could, with confidence say that he could send Ptah out to bring Sekhmet under control, and so would have no reason for doubt - the power of the vassal becomes part of the power of the liege, to put this in feudal terms. So, once again, Sekhmet would have to be of cosmic stature, and not merely a terrestial divinity, bringing us back to the earlier problem.

There is, then, no escape to be had on this issue. There is no absolute "real" or "true name" of Sekhmet to be had, if Ptah or any of the other known "Names of Netjer" created the Universe ex nihilo, as the myths suggest. If a Kemetic, hypothetically, were to continue in his support for Kheru's "cause", he would have to gut Egyptian mythology and Kemetic Orthodox doctrine alike. (No wonder that Craig Schaefer has denied that John and the House are practicing the same religion). But, let us say he does so. Why not? Every religion needs its heretics. Let us see where the discussion may lead.

Click here to continue.