Nun and Atum

In pure Heliopolitan mythology, Atum both rises from the waters of Nun on the primordial mound and is the primordial mound.   He represents the creative potential that exists within the waters.  These are the same waters that Vishnu floats on in Hindu myth.  In the other theologies, different gods are incorporated into the Heliopolitan model.

In  Memphite theology, the god Ptah is associated with the mound, thus one-uping  Atum.  Atum and the other gods then become the heart and tongue of Ptah.  This preserves the already-existing  model while allowing the priests of Ptah to make their god the supreme creator god.

In Hermopolitan theology, we're shown what's happening in Nun.  We see the eight chaos gods who represent the qualities of Nun.  These chaos gods form the soul of Thoth, the supreme creator god of the priests of Hermopolis.  He then causes the mound to rise on which sits Atum.  Well, actually he causes the lotus to grow out of the waters, on which sits the sun god Ra.  This is not a contradiction, just an alternative image.  The lotus and the mound are the same, as are Atum and Ra.

Atum, the uncreated creator, emerges from the waters on his mound in the form of Khepri the dung beetle.  Khepri represents the sun at morning, and his name means "He Who Becomes" (or something like that).  He later takes the form of Ra, the sun at noon.  Oddly enough, the setting sun is seen as Atum in the form of an old man with a staff.  I think this has to do with the belief that Atum will one day dissolve the universe and return to the waters of Nun.  It's said that Osiris will join him, being the only thing besides Atum that will continue to exist.

Atum, being alone, creates Shu and Tefnut.  I'll talk more about that next time.  He does this through heka (magic).  Heka, personified as a god, boasts in inscriptions that he existed before all the gods.  Some view the Memphite version as being the first full expression of what would later become logos philosophy, but I think the Heliopolitan version does so just as well.  Heka or Shu (depending on which version of the myth you use--in fact, the two are interchangeable) is the agency through which the gods and the world are created, which is logos philosophy.

Ta-tenen is an earth god who was associated with the primordial mound, and the mound was often called by his name.  More commonly it was known as the benben.  This was also the name of the capstone of obelisks and pyramids, which were representations of the primordial mound.

Egyptian Tree of Life Part 2

 Okay, here's a new tree with corrections and additional associations.  All of these are drawn from actual Egyptian mythology and beliefs.  There are some startling, almost exact correlations between the standard tree and this, and some that are not so much.  Next I'll start posting about each sphere (more or less).  One thing I'd like to do is flip it so it grows upward (like an actual tree).  This makes more sense for Egyptian mythology where the primordial mound rises up out of the waters. And really, there is no difference between height and depth except perspective.  My drawing program doesn't understand this and won't let me do it, so...

Egyptian Tree of Life Part 1

So, this is my version.  I did take the position of the Duat from the other tree, otherwise I came up with everything myself.  I'm still working on attributions and stuff, so this is far from complete.  I started with Heliopolitan theology and added in both Hermopolitan and Memphite theology.  With Hermopolitan theology, Nun (the primordial waters) contains the Ogdoad (eight gods who represent the forces present in Nun), the totality of which is represented by Thoth.  These are equivalent to Ain, Ain Soph, and Ain Soph Aur on a standard tree.  With Memphite theology, the mound that arises out of Nun, ta-tanen or benben (that second Nun is a mistake, I'll fix that) is associated with Ptah.  The rising of the mound takes the place of the contraction or Tzimtzum.  On that mound is Atum, who creates Shu and Tefnut, who give birth to Geb and Nut, who give birth to the next four.  That's the classic Heliopolitan Ennead.  The birth of Horus turns the Ennead into a decad.

The paths between the spheres (I'll use spheres instead of sephiroth) is what's known in kabbalah as the lighting flash.  It shows the order of emanation from the first sphere to the last.  It's the path of the flow of divine energy.  In Egyptian thought, this is Heka or magic (personified as a god).  In inscriptions, Heka boasts of existing before all the gods and of having created them.  Heka could be seen as the logos,  the divine expression by which Atum created and continues to create everything.  It is the energy which binds the world together.  Shu can also be seen as the logos, and these two are interchangeable.  In some pictures, Heka replaces Shu in his typical position of separating Geb and Nut.

Alright, it's late and I'm tired.  More later.

Better Late Than Never

I meant to keep up with this blog better than I have, but o well.

Lately, I've been reading a lot about ancient Egypt.  I've been trying to link its mythology to Kabbalah, especially the tree of life.  What I've been doing now completely supersedes the correspondences I posted before after reading part of The Zohar.  I'll post more about this later, but I need to make a chart.  Now I've got to figure out how to do that.  Here's an image from someone who's thinking along the same lines as I am (though I was able to create the same basic image and correspondences on my own just working with Heliopolitan theology).

http://www.aiwaz.net/tree-of-life-egyptian-attribution/a41

Allons-y, Hamlet!

First off, if you haven't seen the David Tennant version of Hamlet, you should watch it. It's available on DvD and iTunes and whatever. Tennant brings a great manic quality to Hamlet which fans of Dr. Who will be familiar with (he was the tenth Doctor). It's the first version of Hamlet I've seen where all the funny parts are actually funny! (All of Shakepeare's tragedy's have quite a lot of humor in them.)
Watching this led me to think about the structure of Hamlet. Whether you know it or not, the basic plot of Hamlet is ancient. It goes back to at least ancient Egypt and the story of Osiris. Osiris is killed by his brother Set, who is overthrown in turn by his nephew Horus (Osiris' son).
Hamlet follows this basic plot with variations. One of the biggest variations is that Hamlet dies in the end. If Hamlet is the Horus figure, killing his uncle (another variation) and avenging his father, he should become king and re-establish his father's kingdom. But he doesn't. After killing his uncle Claudius, Hamlet in turn dies. Order is re-established by a secondary figure called Fortinbras. Why does this happen and does it make sense?
Yes, it makes perfect sense. First, this is a tragedy, which means that the main character has to die. But above and beyond that, Shakespeare has created a situation where Hamlet cannot fulfill his role as a Horus figure and needs another Horus figure, Fortinbras, to do so.
Fortinbras is a Horus figure too? Yes, and here's why. The world of Hamlet is essentially two worlds. There's the smaller world of Denmark, the Danish court, and the larger world of Scandinavia. Characters in the play fulfill different, or fail to fulfill any, roll within these two worlds. For instance, within the larger world of Scandinavia, Fortinbras is Horus and Hamlet (through association with his family) is Set. In the smaller world of the Danish court, however, Hamlet is Horus and Fortinbras has essentially no role (until he enters at the end of the play).
To explain this, we need to look at the two worlds separately. First, the smaller world of the Danish court. In this world, Hamlet Sr. (Hamlet's father is also named Hamlet) is the rightful king. He's the Osiris figure. He's murdered by his brother Claudius, who then seizes the crown and becomes king. Claudius is the Set figure, the usurper. Hamlet Jr. becomes of aware of this and eventually kills Claudius, making him the Horus figure, the avenger. Another way of thinking of these character types is Rightful Ruler or King, Usurper, and Avenger.
In the world of Scandinavia, things are different. Originally, Fortinbras Sr. was the ruler of Norway and Denmark (like Hamlet, Fortinbras' father was also named Fortinbras). In this world, Fortinbras Sr. is the rightful king. He loses the throne of Denmark to Hamlet Sr., who kills him in battle. Hamlet Sr. then is the Set figure of this world, the usurper (as is his entire family, which is why Hamlet also fulfills the role of Set in this world). Fortinbras Jr. is then the Horus figure who should avenge his father, but he can't.
In the play, Fortinbras Jr. wants to invade Denmark and reclaim his father's kingdom, but he's forbidden from doing so by the King of Norway.  So Fortinbras, the man of action, can't act and can't fulfill his role as Horus. Instead, his double in the smaller would, Hamlet, is forced to act. Hamlet, though, is the man of inaction. He is both Set and Horus at the same time. He both benefits from his father's usurpation and suffers from his uncle's usurpation. In the end, he chooses to become Horus the Avenger.
But even with the death of his uncle Claudius, a basic wrong still exists. Hamlet still is a Set figure in the larger world. Fortinbras still needs to reclaim his father's kingdom. So Hamlet has to die. Before he does, he passes the kingship to his double Fortinbras, who enters after Hamlet dies. Fortinbras then can fulfill his role as Horus by re-establishing his father's kingdom.
At the end of Hamlet, all wrongs are righted, all roles fulfilled. The two worlds are brought in to harmony. Shakespeare, not that this needs confirmation from me, is a complete genius. Now go watch the play.

I'd like to draw attention to my friend Mike's website: www.michaelpoore.net

Mike has a book coming out next year, a real book (called Up Jumps the Devil) by a real publisher (Ecco/HaperCollins). He's also posting a great blog which is definitely worth reading.

Go there, now!

Hiatus Over

I'm just posting to let all my loyal readers (all one of them, assuming he still reads this) that I'm still alive and will start updating this blog again.  It's been a hard winter in more ways than one.  Now that it's lightened up (both literary and metaphorically), I can blog again.  

A Great Story

At some time in school, you probably read the story of Cadmos (Cadmus).  You probably read the part where he killed a dragon and sowed it's teeth in the ground like seeds, and from those teeth sprang up men in full armor.  I remember reading it in school.

Lately, I read it again in a book called the Dionysiaca by Nonnos.  It's the last great epic poem of the ancient world, and it recounts the story of Dionysus.  Anyway, I had spent the day jumping around in the first two volumes of Mircea Eliade's History of Religious Ideas.  With ancient mythology running through my head, I pulled down the Dionysiaca which had been taking up room on my bookshelf for years.  

 It starts with Zeus' abduction of the maiden Europa.  Europa's father sends his sons to look for her.  They never find her.  Cadmos, one of the sons, is told by the oracle of Delphi to stop looking and found a city instead.  He's given a cow and told that, wherever the cow falls, that's where he should found his city.  So, Cadmos keep the cow walking until it falls in Egypt, and there he founds the Egyptian Thebes.

Before he can do that, though, he has to kill the dragon that inhabits the land, which he does.  Then he takes its teeth and sows them in the ground.  Up spring men in full armor from the teeth.  Cadmos throws a rock among them, and they slaughter each other.  A specific detail from the Dionysiaca is that the land is drenched in "rivers of blood."  Five of the men survive and become followers of Cadmos.  Cadmos then maps out the plan of the city using a plow.  Another specific detail is that the city had seven gates for the seven planets, making it an image of the universe, a microcosm.

This is the story you read in school.  At the time, you probably thought it was a weird fantasy story.  I gaurantee that your teacher didn't really know what to make of it either.  But for all of you who ever wondered what it meant, here's what it means:

The story's about the creation of the world.  It has a lot of parallels in ancient mythology: Egyptian, Babylonian,  Canaanite, Indian, and even the Old Testament.  I'll describe two, the Babylonian and the Canaanite, since they have the strongest parallels.

The Babylonian story of creation contained in the Enuma Elish is the most similar to the Cadmos story.  In it, the young god Marduk claims kingship of the gods.  The mother of the gods, Tiamat, has different ideas and gives rulership to Kingu.  Needless to say, there's a battle.  Tiamat, in the form of a dragon, attacks Marduk.  Marduk kills here and defeats Kingu and his followers.  He carves up Tiamat's body and uses its parts to create the world.  Next, he slays Kingu and uses his blood to create human beings.  Finally, Marduk builds his palace (which is probably the god's principal temple).  In other words, Marduk slays a dragon and uses parts of it in a creative act, creates people, has a blood sacrifice, and founds a palace/temple (temple's in the ancient were built to mirror the universe, making them microcosms, just like Cadmos' city).

All the main plot elements in the Cadmos story are present in the Marduk story with variations.  Marduk is a god who creates the universe using the dragon, while humanity is created through the blood sacrifice of her son.  In the Cadmos story, the parts of the dragon create human beings who then kill each other  in a blood sacrifice.  Both then create a microcosm in the form of a palace/temple/city.  The actual form of the microcosm doesn't matter just so long as it's an image of the universe in miniature.

The other myth is the Canaanite myth of Baal (Ba'al).  Baal, like Marduk, is a younger god who claims kingship of the gods.  He deposes the high god El, the father of the gods.  El names his son Yam as king (just like Tiamat named Kingu).  Yam, in the form of a dragon, attacks Baal.  Baal defeats him and is acknowledged king of the gods.  There is a victory celebration afterward at his palace/temple.  Baal's wife, Anat, locks the doors of the palace and slaughters the guards and guests so that the blood rises "to her knees."  

Again, we have some of the same plot elements from the Cadmos story with variations.  Baal kills a dragon, although he doesn't create anyting from its parts.  El has already created the universe and people so it isn't necessary.  Baal has a palace which is probably his primary temple and therefore a microcosm.  And Baal's wife Anat inaugurates the blood sacrifice by killing the guests at the party.  

Here are the basic elements of all these stories laid out:

The Claiming of Kingship--Both Marduk and Baal claim kingship, which leads to the attack by the dragon.  Cadmos, by founding a city, will also become its first king, so he too is claiming kingship.

The Fight with the Dragon--All three heroes fight a dragon.  The dragon represents the primal forces of the universe, of chaos.  Any act of creation must draw on those forces, which are chaotic  and therefore dangerous, and give them a useful form

The Creation of Human Beings--Both Marduk and Cadmos create people using either the dragon or the child of the dragon.  The child of the dragon represents the same thing as the dragon--the forces of chaos.  The Baal myth is lacking this since El already created humanity.

The Blood Sacrifice--Mircea Eliade links this to agricultural mythology were blood, which carries the life of the person, is given to the soil to ensure the success of the coming harvest.  All three stories have some type of blood sacrifice.  In the Cadmos story, the sacrifice is linked directly to the land since the land the city will be built on is drenched in blood.

The Microcosm--Cadmos lays out the plan of the city so it mirrors the universe.  Marduk's palace/temple would be built according to a universal plan, as would Baal's.  This was fairly common in the ancient world.  Cities and temples were the microcosm, the universe in miniature.  This ensured that the order that existed in the heavens was implemented on earth.  "As above, so below" as the Hermetic axiom goes.  All these stories are about the creation of order out of chaos.  The creation of the microcosm is very important since it links the order of the universe with the order of human society.

I just read a great book called Haunt Me Still by Jennifer Lee Carrell.  It's the sequel to her previous book, Interred With Their Bones, and probably the second book in a Shakespeare trilogy.  This book is much better than the first, and I recommend skipping the first and reading this.  It's all about paganism and Macbeth--what more do you want, really?  And even though it's a work of fiction, there's much that should be taken seriously.  She presents the origins of Macbeth's plot in terms of not only history but of mythology.  Shakespeare borrowed quite a lot of his plot's from ancient mythology: both Hamlet and Richard II, for instance, are variations on the story of Osiris from Egyptian mythology, one of the oldest stories in existence.  The Lion King, Dune, and, oddly enough, Iron Man 1 are also based on that story.

She also presents a theory about the act without a name that the witches are performing.  She links this with the idea of going into the underworld (or death) while still alive and returning transformed, which is the hero myth (see the Pietroasa bowl).  This seems to have been the point of the Hellenistic mystery religions, Egyptian New Kingdom mysticism (Amduat), and quite a lot of modern mysticism as well (read the Dalai Lama's description of an esoteric practice in his intro to the Tibetan Book of the Dead).

Correspondences

Okay, here's some correspondences inspired by The Zohar:

Earth

Osiris--Samhain--Shekinah (lower earth)--7th day

Amun/Horus--Yule--Shekinah (upper earth)--4th day

Water

Set--Lughnasadh--Hod (lower water)--5th day

Atum--Mabon--Hesed (upper water)--1st day

Air

Min--Imbolg--Yesod (lower air)--6th day

Khepri--Tiferet (upper air)--3rd day

Fire

Horus--Netsah (lower fire)--4th day

Ra--Gevurah (upper fire)--2nd day

You'll notice there are two Shekinahs.  According to The Zohar, Shekinah completes the triad of Hesed, Gevurah, and Tiferet as well as the triad of Netsah, Hod, and Yesed.  

Funny in a Literary Sort of Way

This last Sunday, my friend Mike (www.michaelpoore.net) called me.  "Let's go for a ride," he said.  "Doesn't matter where."  I was getting off work and had nothing to do for the rest of the day, so I said okay.  So we took off, heading south, with no particular destination in mind.  In my mind, I was thinking that I was Sancho Panza to Mike's Don Quixote: he proposes something kinda hairbrained, and, even though I consider myself the sane one, I go along with it.  And, to be fair, it does usually turn out to be fun.  It pays to know crazy people.

The moment came, however, as we were driving south of Lowell that Mike said, in an enthusiastic voice, "I know, let's go see the windmills!"  Which prompted me to blurt out: "I knew it!  You really are Don Quixote!  I really am Sancho Panza!  Holy shit!"

Well, as it turns out, there are windmill fields south of Rensselaer, and they are very beautiful all lit up at night.   And Mike didn't attack any of them (although, if any were close to the road we were on, I'm sure he would have tried).

Here's the deserted road we stopped on to get a little relief:

I apologize to the people of Chalmers.

Forgot About #3

I forgot to mention the third book I've been considering reading.  It's a book I've been hesitating to read, which you'll completely understand when I tell you what it is, but the urge to read it has been growing in my mind.  The book is Mein Kampf by Adolf Hilter.  I've been watching the World War II channel, also known as the History Channel, which has been getting me interested in the war.  I would read the book solely for the insight into Hilter's mind and motivations, nothing else.  The Nazi's were horrible but also fascinating, kind of like watching When Animals Attack.  I don't think I'd get anything out of it personally except a satisfied curiosity, hence #3.  

So Many Books, So Little Time

The holidays are over and all the bacteria are dead.  Yay!  Now if only my ears and nose would drain so I could hear and smell again.

Here's my dilemma: what should I read next?  This is the eternal struggle of the bibliophile.  I'm not talking about novels.  I read novels like most people eat candy.  I'm talking about the hard, demanding books that require patience and attention.  

Contender #1 is Carl Jung's Red Book.  It looks like a medieval illuminated manuscript, but really it's Jung's account of a series of mystical experiences he had using a technique called guided imagination (or something like that).  It's extremely personal, and, in the end, the reader might not be able to take anything from it.

Contender #2 is The Zohar: Volume 1 trans. Daniel Matt.  This is the book about Kabbalah.  This not only contains the text but also extensive commentary so you can understand what you're reading.  It's a difficult book and note taking is required.  I'll probably never understand it completely unless I learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and study the Talmud (and I'm not even Jewish).  Still, having just read the very beginning, I've already taken a lot of notes.  And yes, I did say volume #1.  So far, there are five of a planned ten or twelve volumes.  I'll have to take this volume by volume.

As an aside, the great thing about Kabbalah is that it's like software.  It describes the universe.  You can use it when you need it.  There are other mystical and magical systems, other software, you can switch to if need be.  Kabbalah is just one, and it's a good one.

Okay, I think Kabbalah wins.  First, volume #1 of The Zohar.  Then, Jung's Red Book.  This might take awhile.

Liber Novus

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Brahma

If the red slayer think he slays,
Or if the slain think he is slain,
They know not well the subtle ways
I keep, and pass, and turn again.

Far or forgot to me is near,
Shadow and sunlight are the same,
The vanished gods to me appear,
And one to me are shame and fame.

They reckon ill who leave me out;
When me they fly, I am the wings;
I am the doubter and the doubt,
And I the hymn the Brahmin sings.

The strong gods pine for my abode,
And pine in vain the sacred Seven;
But thou, meek lover of the good!
Find me, and turn thy back on heaven.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

1856 [1857]

A Day at the Races

I've created my own calendar.  I've actually created two, but I'll just talk about the one.  It's predominately a solar event-oriented calendar with the four solar events (the two solstices and the two equinoxes) as its main festivals.  The idea for it came during a class on literary criticism when I was bored.  I remembered that the Egyptians had considered the sun to be a different god depending on its position in the sky.  When rising, the sun was Khepri.  At noon, it was Ra.  At sunset, it was Atum.  I decided to apply this to the year as a whole.  The year can be divided in two, a light part and a dark part.  The dark of the year is the period between the Autumnal and the Vernal Equinoxes when the nights are longer than the days.  The light part then occurs between the Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes when the days are longer than the nights.  The sunrise of the year is then the Vernal Equinox, the beginning of the light.  So this is associated with the god Khepri.  The noon of the year is obviously the Summer Solstice, the longest day of the year, and therefore associated with the god Ra.  And the sunset is the Autumnal Equinox, associated with the god Atum.  Which just leaves midnight, the Winter Solstice.  Keeping with the sun god theme, this can be associated with Amun.  Amun was considered the hidden sun, the sun at night.  Other associations are possible here, such as Horus as a child, but Amun keeps the pattern better.

The other four festivals are nature festivals that I've also associated with other gods.  Beltaine I've associated with Horus (as a man, not a child), Imolg with Min, Lughnasadh with Set, and Sahmain with Osiris.  Of course, these are all the sabbats of the Wiccan/Neopagan calendar, but their origins are very ancient (Christianity: The Origins of a Pagan Religion by Philippe Walter, to cite just one source offhand).  

Also, the sun is Horakhty during the twelve hours of the day (Horus of the Two Horizons) and Khnum (the Ba of Ra) during its twelve hours of the night (according to the Amduat).  By the way, Khnum is an old creator god, originally pictured with a bulls head, who became identified as Ra's Ba and was given a ram's head.  This is because the Egyptians never met a pun they didn't like.  The Egyptian word for ram was also ba, because, well, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa. 

Yes, this does take the Egyptian gods out of their context, and some people might object to that.  However, even in ancient Egypt, gods changed context all the time, as with Khnum.  I'm not doing anything that every ancient culture didn't do.  I've researched each god (and continue to do so), and I think each placement is appropriate to the symbolism of that god.

I'm still working on developing this calendar.  The other one's on hold for the moment, though I'll get back to it.

A Night at the Opera

I've recently become an opera fan.  I never used to like the opera until earlier this year when I went to see one for the hell of hit.  Seeing an opera is a whole different experience than just listening to it.  But where did I see an opera, you ask?  Chicago?  I could've gone into Chicago and seen one, but actually I saw a live broadcast (well, the encore anyway) at my local movie theater from The Met.  They transmit some of their operas to six of the seven continents (I'm sure that the scientists on Antarctica are sorry they're missing out).  I've even gotten my friend Ken interested.  We have so far gone on two of the gayest "man-dates" that two straight men can go on with the possible exception of going to see The Wiz.  That would be THE gayest.  Apropos of nothing, my friend Mike knows the entire score to The Wiz by heart.  Just thought I'd mention that.

Baby's First Villanelle

I've been experimenting with poetic forms and wrote my first villanelle last night.  It's definitely not going to revolutionize the poetic field, but it does fulfill all the requirements of the form.  In trying to think of what to write, I immediately went to Shakespeare, the patron saint of the English language.  I'm provisionally calling it "Modern Trickster."

I am that merry wanderer of the night;

I dance and laugh and shout and sing

more than Puck ever did at his height.

I wield an awesome might

yet am as fragile as a hummingbird's wing.

I am that merry wanderer of the night.

Long I gaze at any thrilling sight

and raise my voice and let it ring

more than Puck ever did at his height.

I don't give a damn about wrong or right.

To me the same is a worker or a king.

I am that merry wanderer of the night.

I'm always ready for a fight

and long to give a head a ping

more than Puck ever did at his height.

I am the whiskey with the bite

that lights the fire that makes souls zing.

I am that merry wanderer of the night

more than Puck ever was at his height.

Thoughts of Death

This post is appropriate to the season.  Fall is the time when everything dies, and Halloween is the time when the veil between life and death is the thinnest and the dead may return (hopefully not as zombies).  It's the only time of the year when it's socially acceptable  to put up images of skulls, skeletons, and other morbid things.

Which got me thinking: what can we know about what happens after death?  And my answer is: nothing.  Once our bodies die, once our brains die, all our knowledge ceases.  Everything we can know comes from our experiences, and all our experiences are created by our brain.  Everthing.  It's all chemical and electrical processes.  When your brain's dead, you can know nothing and experience nothing.  Near-death experiences, you say?  I can wire your brain up and cause you to have one just by stimulating parts of your brain.  I can inject you with a drug called DMT (I think) that will cause you to experience alien abduction even though you're in a bed in a lab being watched by doctors all the time.  Any experience, whether "real" or not, is a function of your brain.

Now let me tell you a lie.  Let me tell you that there are two types of knowledge which we'll call lower and higher.  The lower knowledge I've just described.  We'll use it's Latin name, scientia.  On the Tree of Life, it's represented by Malkuth (the Kingdom), the tenth and final Sephirot.  It's also called Shekinah, the Presence.  In one version of the Tree, it takes two forms.  It takes the familiar form with Malkuth at the bottom.  There's an earlier form, however, with no Malkuth.  Instead, more towards the top, there's a Sephirot called Daath.  Daath represents the higher knowledge.  I prefer to use the Greek word gnosis for this.  This knowledge isn't dependent on experience; technically, you can't experience it.  It's beyond all experience and knowledge (scientia).  It's the great dilemma of every single mystical system I care to name how to experience that which cannot be experienced.  I said this was a lie, didn't I?  It's a lie because words can't explain what brain can't know.  The paradox is that all mystical systems try to explain it anyway in order to get its followers to experience it.  That's right, the it that can't be experienced.  Or even talked about.  Yet it is on both counts.

On this Tree, Daath falls and becomes Malkuth.  In a sense, this represents the formation of the ego.  An infant doesn't conceive of itself as a separate being.  The ego is the mental construct that allows us to think of ourselves as a separate and independent being apart from everything else.  The knowledge of ourselves as everything is lost (so to speak, since its not really knowledge at all) and the knowledge of ourselves as ourselves begins.  I was watching the movie Excalibur recently, and Merlin expressed the same thing I'm saying.  He talked about an earlier time when everything was one.  During this time, the sword of power was forged.  My friends asked how a sword could be forged during a time of oneness and peace.  My response was that it's forging probably ended the time of oneness.  The sword can be a representation of the ego.  In some mythology, the sword is forged, broken, and re-forged (as happens in Excalibur).  This can represent the initial formation of the ego, its disillusionment that it's really separate (or even real), leading to its destruction and re-formation.  The re-formed ego realizes it's an illusion, but a necessary one.

Rene Descartes obsession with proving his existence began in childhood.  Freud was so right.

Young Descartes one day said, "Mother,

my enemy is my new little brother.

He's created an illusion

as part of your delusion

that only he exists and no other."