sdi

I think I've found the mistake that I've been making: I've been mixing and matching my myths up! I have noted that the Horos-myth concerns growing up and gaining one's inheritance, while the Greek myths concern exile-and-return, but I'm starting to think that these are not two different takes on the same idea; rather, I think they're two different myths and I have been conflating them.

Let me start somewhere else and hopefully it'll become clear as we go. No less than Hesiod tells us that the Theban Wars and the Troian War are the two major events of the age of Heroes:

• In the former, Europe was snatched away from Tyre to Crete, and her son Kadmos left Crete (simultaneously by choice and compulsion) to found Thebai, which was ruled by his descendents. Eventually, Thebai was besieged by the Seven, who failed (with six of the Seven dying), and the Epigone (their "offspring," including Diomedes and Eurualos), who successfully sacked the city ten years later, carrying Europe's magic necklace and robe and Manto away.

• In the latter, Helene was snatched away from Argos to Troia (simultaneously by choice and compulsion) by Paris. The Danaans sent an envoy to Troia, and when that failed, they (including Diomedes and Eurualos) besieged it for ten years (during which many of their heroes died), eventually sacking the city and carrying Helene and Kassandra away.

Mythically speaking, though, these have the same meaning: the stories of both follow largely the same events, with the only meaningful difference between them being that individuals in the Troia myth are represented by bloodlines in the Thebai myth. We see a very similar story in the Theseus myth, too: the Athenian Youths are snatched away from Athens to the labyrinth (mostly unwillingly, though Theseus by choice). He enters the labyrinth, slays it's inhabitant, and carries the Athenian Youths and Ariadne away. (It is noteworthy that labyrinths are called "Troy-Towns" in England and Scandinavia to this day.)

These don't follow the pattern of the Horos myth, since Horos never leaves Egypt; instead, he avenges his father and claims his birthright. So if Horos represents one category of myth (the Hero-myth), I think the three above constitute a second one; let's call it the City-myth.

Now, I've been looking at a bunch of myths so far, and treating them all as following the Hero-myth model. But I think this is a miscategorization and causes problems (which is why I pulled my Hero Myth Rosetta Stone some weeks ago). The Perseus and Orestes myths clearly follow the Hero-myth model. The Odusseus myth does too, but only if we treat the Odyssey as self-contained, treating the Odusseus of the Iliad as a separate mythic character.

But Kore of the Persephone-myth isn't Horos, she's Europe! Just as Europe is beguiled by Zeus-as-a-bull and a crocus, Kore is beguiled by Hades (the "Khthonic Zeus") and a narcissus. Just as Helene is snatched away to the house of Paris, Kore is snatched away to the house of Hades. Here, though, the envoy from Olumpos (that is, Demeter and her attendants) manage to secure a truce rather than the house of Hades being destroyed. (That is, it covers the first half of the myth but not the last half.)

There's another City-myth I haven't discussed: the Aesir-Vanir War and Ragnarok. Here, Freyja goes (by choice?) to Asgard, the Vanir send an envoy, and the war ends in a truce with Freyja being held hostage by the Aesir. Then things settle for a long time before Asgard is eventually destroyed during Ragnarok (a second, separate war mostly involving the children of the first war, like with Thebai). Frustratingly, while there are tantalizing similarities (for example, Freyja has the Brisingamen and a magic cape, matching Europe's magic necklace and robe), what remains of the Asgard myth—or at least my understanding of it, from my light studies so far!—seems fragmentary...

Now, while I think these are separate myths, there is an interesting way these fit together. The first half of the Hero-myth (that is, concerning Osiris, Danae, etc.) matches the City-myth: beautiful and wonderful Osiris being Europe, Helene, the Athenian Youths, Kore, Freyja, etc., but the second half of the Horos-myth has nothing to do with it. Now, Thebai, Troia, the labyrinth, Asgard, etc. are all obviously the material world in which we live. Horos is born of Isis (in the material world), so if we're looking for a Horos-equivalent in the City-myth, we're looking for someone on the "side" of the city (rather than an invader) and who avoids it's destruction (since Horus is not present for any city's destruction). (That is, even though Homer treats the Danaans as the protagonists of his tale, we should be wary of them, since we are the Troians!) There was exactly one Troian hero who survived the sack of Troia: Aineias, son of Ankhises and Aphrodite, most pious of the Troians, called "hero" by Apollon himself, and most beloved by the gods. I think he's our Horos, and the parallel is made explicit by Dionusos of Halicarnassos, who tells us that Aineias's father warns him before Troia falls, causing him to withdraw to Ida; this is the direct correspondence with Osiris coming to Horos from Hades, and is the point at which the Hero-myth diverges from the City-myth: with the City going on to its destruction while Horos goes on to do something else.

There's two things interesting about Aineias. First, I've always considered Virgil's Aenead to be a second-rate knock-off of the Odyssey, but if I'm right and Aineias is Horos, then this makes sense, since the Odusseus of the Odyssey is also Horos, and thus they ought to tell the same myth. Second, I had been assuming that Baldr was the Germanic equivalent of Apollon or Horos, but Snorri Sturluson identifies Aineias as Víðarr, slayer of Fenrir and one of the only Aesir to survive Ragnarok, and who goes on to found a new city. Thus, presumably Víðarr is also Horos; and if (as Ploutarkhos says) that Seth is to be identified with the eclipse, then Fenrir (who gobbles up the Sun) is presumably Seth (or, more likely, one of his avatars, perhaps the red bull Horos fights).

In the same way, I assume Daidalos (successful) and Ikaros (cautionary) are the Horos-equivalents in the Theseus myth, literally taking on wings and leaving the labyrinth behind to its fate.

Please consider this a first-draft conjecture, there are many, many details that I have yet to chase down, but it resolves the discrepancies that caused me to need to rework my Hero Myth Rosetta Stone, which I will of course be working at as time permits.

It also carries with it the uncomfortable thought that Troia has not yet fallen: the material world is still here, the old gods are not yet dead. Hesiod is unclear on the end of the Heroic age and the beginning of the Iron age—they seem to blend together—but on the basis of his descriptions of the end of the Iron age, the Voluspa's descriptions of the prelude to Ragnarok, and of course my own theories that the old ways remain open (but probably not for much longer), the sack of Troia presumably comes soon. I urge to you to keep a weather eye out for Troian horses and to heed the warning of Laocoon which prompted Ankhises and Aineias to flee:

Timeō Danaōs et dōna ferentēs.

I fear the Danaans, even those bearing gifts.

Akhilles returns to the killing-fields of Troia. Apollon encourages prince Aineias to step up and fight him but Akhilles's armor, newly-forged by Hephaistos himself, is impervious to his blows. Akhilles is just about to kill Aineias when Poseidon spirits him away from battle. Akhilles raves (Iliad XX 344–352):

ὢ πόποι ἦ μέγα θαῦμα τόδ’ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρῶμαι:
ἔγχος μὲν τόδε κεῖται ἐπὶ χθονός, οὐδέ τι φῶτα
λεύσσω, τῷ ἐφέηκα κατακτάμεναι μενεαίνων.
ἦ ῥα καὶ Αἰνείας φίλος ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν
ἦεν: ἀτάρ μιν ἔφην μὰψ αὔτως εὐχετάασθαι.
ἐρρέτω: οὔ οἱ θυμὸς ἐμεῦ ἔτι πειρηθῆναι
ἔσσεται, ὃς καὶ νῦν φύγεν ἄσμενος ἐκ θανάτοιο.
ἀλλ’ ἄγε δὴ Δαναοῖσι φιλοπτολέμοισι κελεύσας
τῶν ἄλλων Τρώων πειρήσομαι ἀντίος ἐλθών.

Here is how Samuel Butler translates it:

Alas! what marvel am I now beholding? Here is my spear upon the ground, but I see not him whom I meant to kill when I hurled it. Of a truth Aeneas also must be under heaven's protection, although I had thought his boasting was idle. Let him go hang; he will be in no mood to fight me further, seeing how narrowly he has missed being killed. I will now give my orders to the Danaans and attack some other of the Trojans.

This is hot garbage. It's slow, it's flat, and it conveys none of Akhilles's fury or personality. (His own best friend, Patroklos, called him "a dreadful man, who would be quick to blame even the innocent!") My favorite, W. H. D. Rouse's, is a little better but still not very good:

Confound it all, here's a miracle done before my eyes! There lies my spear on the ground, and not a trace can I see of the fellow I meant to kill! Aineias must have some friends in heaven. And I thought his boasting was all stuff and nonsense! Let him go to the devil. He won't have a mind to try me again after this happy escape from death! All right, I will round up our people and have a try for some other Trojans.

Rouse argued vehemently, and I agree, that Homer wasn't trying to be high literature: the Iliad was meant to be a rousing story told over beer. Sure, it contains dignified history and theology, but it was not, itself, meant to be dignified—it was meant to be exciting enough to buy the bard another day's meal and lodging. But I think Rouse dropped the ball, here.

Here's how I'd translate it:

What the fuck kind of magic is this!?
Here's my spear lying on the ground, but I can't
see the man I meant to kill with it.
So Aineias really is dear to the immortal gods!
I thought he was just bullshitting me.
Eh, fuck it: he won't have the guts to face me
again, happy to have cheated death once.
Come on, I'll rally the bloodthirsty Danaans
to go and try some other Troian face-to-face.

Compared to the others, it may look like I'm taking liberties, but it's nearly word-for-word...

(If you don't like his language, let me remind you we're talking about Akhilles and not, say, Diomedes or Hektor!)

Actually, I think I jumped the gun in posting my Hero-Myth Rosetta Stone... it needs to cook a little longer, lest I mislead anyone. I have taken it down again for the moment. I apologize if anyone was in the midst of using it!

And while I'm at it, I'll leave you all with a question I've been pondering.

I'm pretty convinced that many of the hero myths and mystery cults in Greece are derivative of those of Horos: they line up too nicely to be a coincidence, in my opinion, and the Greeks themselves say they came from Egypt. There's just one outlier, and to my mind it's such a huge one that it dismantles much of my thesis that the Greeks got all this from Egypt.

Apollon.

While all of his symbolism is identical to Horos's, and while (early, Delian) Apollon's family relationships match up with those of Horos (Zeus=Osiris, Leto=Isis, Asteria=Nephthys, Artemis=Anubis), that's about it: Apollon's myths don't have a Seth-equivalent and don't form a coherent story-arc like the hero myths do (rather, telling a variety of disconnected stories, somewhat like the early Gilgamesh tales before they were compiled into the Epic).

There is also the insistence that Apollon came to the Greeks from Hyperborea, far to the north, this being the birthplace of Leto, the winter home of Apollon, the home of Abaris (his favored priest), etc. etc. (Diodoros of Sicily, Library of History II xlvii)

So while all the Greek heroes seem to be Horos, the Greek hero-in-chief conspicuously does not and seems to come from somewhere to the north. Supporting this, there are rumors in channeled and alternative-history sources that say that the Iliad took place in northern Europe and came to the Aegean along with "the sea peoples" who displaced the Mycenaeans, and these same sources are ones that indicate that what we know as Egypt began as an Atlantean colony or refugee settlement. This is notable since I have speculated (on the basis of the symbolism) that the Horos-myth could be a reaction to the Atlantean civilization; if that's so, it's of course noteworthy that Egypt isn't the only place with literally monumental religio-scientific structures beyond the capability of neolithic societies.

So what are we to make of this? Did the Egyptians get Horos from somewhere else? Is Hyperborea a strictly mythical (rather than historical) location? Are Horos and Apollon two parallel branches of some third source, now lost and/or obscured? What, if anything, does all this have to do with Atlantis?

I guess if there's any takeaway, it's humility: we know so little, and that even if I have pretty convincing evidence of all these hero-myths being related, correlation is not causation...

Δαναός. ἁγνόν τ᾽ Ἀπόλλω, φυγάδ᾽ ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ θεόν.
Χορός. εἰδὼς ἂν αἶσαν τήνδε συγγνοίη βροτοῖς.
Δαναός. συγγνοῖτο δῆτα καὶ παρασταίη πρόφρων.

Danaos. Pray also to holy Apollo, a god exiled from heaven.
Daughters. Knowing our lot, he may well pity us mortals.
Danaos. May he indeed pity us and so be kindly disposed to us.

(Aiskhulos, The Suppliants 214–6, as translated—hopefully not too badly!—by yours truly. "Danaos" means "ancient," by the way, a fitting name for the Perseus myth's equivalent of Atum.)

(welp my blog has gone from R-rated to X-rated if it hasn't already, sorry)

Something's been bothering me about the Horos myth.

In the Persephone myth, we see that the individual soul lives a blissful existence in Nusa until she "sins" by being tempted by the beautiful narcissus and is forced to live a half-life thereafter; in Hesiod, daimons live on Olumpos until they perjure their oaths to the Stux, being forced into a temporary exile for doing so; in Plotinus, individual souls are eternal and changeless, but temporarily focus their attention away from eternity in inverse proportion to their strength. All of these assume that individual souls pre-exist bodies.

In the Horos myth, though, we have something very different: it is Osiris (consciousness, soul) that falls (in its entirety); Horos doesn't even exist until much later, being born of both Osiris and Isis (matter). This implies that bodies pre-exist individual souls, which is a very different conception of where individual souls come from. Let's see if we can puzzle out what that means, shall we? I think there's four major points we can work from:

1. It is clear that the gods—Osiris, Set, Isis, and Nephthys—are eternal: when they are said to be born of Geb and Nut, it is speaking of an ontological relationship. But we know that at least the things born of Isis—that is, material things—are mortal and therefore subject to time. I think this is somewhat true of Osiris, too: Empedocles calls the children of Zeus, the daimons, "long-lived" or "immortal," suggesting that they too are subject to time, even if they aren't subject to death. All of this seems to imply that Horos, the individual soul, is of a lower degree than the gods: he isn't eternal but is subject to time, and presumably has a beginning but not an ending.

2. We also know that Horos is formed from the "essence" of Osiris which Isis magically draws out of his scattered pieces.

3. We also know that Horos is born premature and lame; he only becomes strong as time goes on.

4. Finally, we know that while Horos is initially born of Isis and Osiris, the gods eventually strip him of his Isis-part, leaving only the Osiris-part.

These four points seem to suggest to me something like the following:

When a human body is born and is in need of a soul to animate it, it is drawn from some amalgamation of soul-stuff; we might as well call this amalgamation "random," though it is certainly some part of soul that is appropriate to the conditions of the body. Now, this soul-stuff contributes the material of soul, but it is initially unformed or unshaped; by living a human life, the soul is imprinted with some amount of patterning and structure. When the body fails, if the patterning and structure is sufficient to hold the mass of soul together, then a Horos is born; the mass of soul has crystallized into an individual soul. This soul is said to be "born lame" because it initially requires the material body to act as a crutch. On the other hand, if the patterning and structure gained from that first life is insufficient to hold the mass of soul together, then it falls apart and rejoins the pool of unformed soul-stuff from which it came.

Presumably, once the individual soul is born, it can and does go on to animate further bodies and refine its patterning and structure. When this refining has gone on for long enough, it has developed structures or organs of consciousness within it that allow it to exist on its own, without the need for a material body. Once that occurs, then the gods take away Horos's flesh and leave his bones: that is, he exists solely as a construct of consciousness.

If that is all right, it suggests that the teaching presumes that some fraction of people—whatever fraction is presently on their first incarnation—don't have individual souls. I couldn't begin to estimate that fraction, though I imagine it varies by time and place, and it would explain why the myth of Osiris so emphasized the right ordering of society in order to maximize the potential for Horoi to develop (as opposed to, say, ours, which seems to be an attempt to minimize this potential).

It also makes sense of why individual souls are always considered so beautiful and precious: it's because they are precious, being initially very fragile and difficult to bring into being. Of course, all soul-stuff will eventually find its way back to its source, but the rate at which this occurs depends greatly upon how helpful we are to the youngest souls among us (which is to say, presently not at all).

The notion that (some) humans may not have individual souls is not one I have seen in occult philosophy; in fact, the only example that comes to mind is the story of Peer Gynt, where at the end of his life, the Button-Molder insists that Peer is so mediocre that his soul is worthy of neither heaven nor hell and must be melted back down into soul-stuff.

Is any of this likely to be true? I doubt it; it's a model, and "all models are wrong, but some are useful." A better question, then, is what use can we make of such a model?

Gonna go out on a limb and say that I'm pretty sure now that Hephaistos is (another) Horos.

1. The name Hephaistos is not terribly different from the Egyptian heru-pa-khered "Horos the Younger."

2. Hephaistos was born lame, just like Horos.

3. Hephaistos treated his mother cruelly, just like Horos (though imprisoning her is, granted, a lot better than beheading her).

4. Hephaistos was banished from heaven, just like Horos.

5. Hephaistos was only restored back to heaven by Dionusos, just like heroes (Horoi) are only restored back to heaven by the application of the mysteries. (Indeed, Horos himself was only restored back to heaven through Osiris's intervention.)

6. Hephaistos is associated with fire (and Fire), just as Horos comes to be (after recovering his father's throne).

I think it is interesting that Hephaistos married (in Homer) Grace or (in Hesiod) Radiance (after losing his first wife, Aphrodite), while Heracles married Youth (after losing several earlier wives, including Husband-Killer, whose name you'd think would have been a hint), Jason married Princess (after abandoning his first wife, Cunning), Theseus married Bright (after abandoning his first wife, Holiest), etc. etc. etc. Horos's consorts are less clear to me, and, alas, poor Apollo never seemed to have much luck with anyone.

𓎬 𓊽 𓋹

When I revisited the Horus myth in light of discovering what Plutarch censored from it, I had neglected to revisit the sacred talismans of the mysteries, but I think what was omitted from the trial makes it clear what's going on with them.

Each of these objects represent, I think, a token from a critical scene in the mysteries themselves. The tyet knot is Isis's girdle, which she removes when she cuts her hair and puts on garments of mourning—I presume she gives the girdle to the initiate watching the mysteries, or perhaps a miniature version is given them in reminiscence of it. The djed pillar is the stalk of heather in which Osiris was imprisoned, which was perfumed and wrapped in linen and given to Malkander and Astarte—I presume a normal-sized heather stalk wrapped in linen is given to initiates at that point in the mysteries.

But what about the ankh?

Well, the tyet is intentionally soft—not only is it a garment, but it is also representative of feminine matter, which receives and is changed by receiving. The djed is intentionally hard—not only is it a structural element in the story, but it is also representative of masculine spirit, which gives and is unchanged by giving. But these are just the same as the parts of Horus mentioned in the trial: his Isaic part is his soft tissue, his flesh, while his Osirian part is his structure, his bones. By defeating Set he legitimized himself to his father, but by beheading Isis he delegitimized himself from his mother, and so the council of gods gave him the kingdom but took away his flesh. This is saying that when the soul no longer has need of a material crutch, the nature of the cosmos is that they ascend to an unembodied life.

But this is just what we see in the ankh, which writers from antiquity on all agree is representative of "eternal life," and which is expressed in the object itself: it's hard and structural like the djed—presumably initiates were given one made of reed or something—but it has the shape of the tyet knot. This is indicating spirit shaped by matter, which is just what the ascended soul is when divested of its material part: a living idea given its peculiar form through its exile in the world.

So I wonder if the ankh talisman was given to initiates as a part of the trial scene, as a symbol of Horus and a reminder that "eternal life" isn't a gift or an inevitability, but something to be hard-won through the contemplation of the mysteries and the development of one's own, personal meaning from them.

Hades is the material world. Orpheus is Horus's bones (his Osiris part). Eurydice is Horus's flesh (his Isis part). Far from being Orpheus's great mistake, Eurydice was never supposed to leave Hades, just as it was only Horus's bones which ascend to rule Egypt.

This post is a bit of a revision to my exploration of the myth of Horus: in the month since then, I found a few lost bits and pieces of the Horus myth, and my interpretation of it has evolved a little bit. I think it also agrees even more closely with the Odysseus story than it did before, and it is easier to confidently associate characters and events between the two:

The left column is taken from Plutarch, Isis and Osiris XIX, but I have amended it (sometimes a little speculatively) with the italicized sections as follows:

• 2. Diodorus Siculus (Library of History I lxxxviii) says that Osiris came to Horus "in the form of a wolf," which most likely refers to 𓃢𓏃𓏠𓅂 Khenti-Amentiu "Foremost of the Westerners," who was jackal-headed (woof woof) and equated with Osiris (J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Conflict of Horus and Seth IV ii). The confusion of canids isn't anything to wonder at: Lycopolis ("City of Wolves") was consecrated to Anubis and Wepwawet, both jackals.

• 5. Set turning into a red bull is attested in the Pyramid Texts (418a, 679d, 1543a–1550a, 1977b) and apparently is a commonplace of later Egyptian myth (Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde XLVIII p. 72), though I have not found direct references. The loss of Horus's eye and Set's testicles is attested in the Pyramid Texts (418a, 594a, 679d), and also of course suggested by their restoration (see [8]).

• 6–7. Plutarch censors this episode in Isis and Osiris XIX, but says Isis was beheaded immediately after in XX, and this is confirmed in the Papyrus Sallier IV. I have retained Horus taking Isis's crown and therefore claiming kingship, since otherwise Set would have no reason for taking him to court.

• 8–10. I had mistakenly thought that Set took Horus to court over the legitimacy of his rule, but I was incorrect: it is over the legitimacy of his birth (Greek νοθεία notheia, "birth out of wedlock"). Plutarch censors this episode in Isis and Osiris XIX, but references the uncensored version in Desire and Grief VI and On the Generation of the Soul in the Timæus XXVII, and this is confirmed in the Papyrus Jumilhac. These vary in what parts, specifically, are assigned to the mother and father, but in any case the mother's part is always the outward part (skin, fat, flesh), and the father's part is always the inward part (blood, bones, marrow). The restoration of Horus's eye and Set's testicles is mentioned in the Pyramid Texts (36a, 39a, 65b, 95c, 535a–b, 578d, 591b, 595a–596c, 946a–c, 1614b). There is another version of the trial in The Contendings of Horus and Seth (Papyrus Chester Beatty I), but it conflicts with Plutarch's version of the myth (for example, Thoth is created from Horus "impregnating" Set, rather than pre-existing), and so I consider it a parallel tradition.

• 12. Horus displacing Set to become undisputed king is implied by Turin King List; Herodotus, Histories II cxliv; Manetho, History of Egypt; Diodorus Siculus, Library of History I xxv; etc. The reconciliation between Horus and Set is suggested by the Pyramid Texts (390b, 678a–c, 801b–c, 971a–b, 975a–b, 1453b, 2100a–b), but Diodorus Siculus (Library of History I xxi) says that Set was executed (but his version of the myth differs in a number of other ways, too, so it is less trustworthy).

I think I can fairly confidently say, now, that Odysseus is Horus's bones, Circe is Tewaret, Hermes and Athena are Thoth (who is always the advisor to the king, whether he be Ra, Osiris, Isis, or Horus), Teiresias is Khenti-Amentiu (the avatar of Osiris), the monsters following Circe are the serpent chasing Tewaret, Helios is Set as a red bull (and the cows are his testicles), Calypso is Isis, Odysseus's various ships (his original one, the raft, and the Phæacian ship) are Horus's flesh, and Poseidon is Set.

I had hurried past Osiris's questions to Horus, as I was unsure what to make of them. J. Gwyn Griffiths (The Conflict of Horus and Seth IV iii) suggests that the first question is meant to demonstrate Horus's piety and the second is meant to demonstrate his intelligence, which is no less reasonable than my supposition of blood-thirstiness.

The main change from my prior analysis is that the stripping of Horus's material part makes it obvious that Horus triumphs over matter in the first battle, not the second, as I had previously thought. In a way, this makes more sense: it means that the battles with Set are not the mastery of the virtues, but the climbing of the levels of the tetractys (that is, the reverse process of the birth of the gods): one transcends Earth and Water together, then transcends Air, and finally all becomes one again at the end of time. So we can therefore associate mastery of the civic virtues (e.g. separating men from beasts) with defeating Circe (who does not turn Odysseus's men into pigs, but rather makes their outward form reflect their inward form); similarly, the mastery of the purificatory virtues (e.g. transcending desire) can be associated with defeating Calypso (who appeals to Odysseus's sensual desires, and yet he spends all his time on the shore, longing for home).

That it is only the Osirian part of Horus that becomes king of Egypt is supportive of my hypothesis that Horus the Elder is the seed of the individual soul within Osiris when he is born of Nut. It is also strongly suggestive of the principle that all things return to their source: Fire to Fire, and Earth to Earth. To my recollection, Empedocles never mentions such a principle, though Plutarch does (On the Man in the Moon XXX), albeit in different terms.

In the version of the trial included in The Contendings of Horus and Seth, Horus "impregnates" Set and Thoth pops out of Set's forehead as a result, which is awfully reminiscent of the Athena myth and also agrees with my prior argument that Hermes is Odysseus's intelligence while Athena is Odysseus's wisdom.

Previously I said that the White Goddess was like those daimons who speed the rising soul on their way, but I think this is incorrect: if that's so, why does she remain in the sea, and why does Odysseus throw back her veil? No, I think the White Goddess is the mysteries themselves (appropriate, for the daughter of Cadmus!) and her veil is the mystery teachings; Odysseus makes use of them during his three-day-and-night-swim (that is, Plato's "three philosophical lives"), and he returns the veil because, as the Buddha remarks in his Parable of the Raft, teachings are for crossing over but not for holding on to: once one has transcended the material world, the teachings are simply no longer relevant.

I hadn't paid any attention to the sacrifice of the three animals to Poseidon at the end of the Odyssey. I wonder if these three are recapitulations of the three battles: that is, they express the reason why this is all the way it is. We are living offerings to divinity: the experiences we have, the teachings we learn, the states of consciousness we enter as we individuate and climb the latter of being: all of these are what we bring back to the Source at the end of time. We are god coming to know itself: one ram, one bull, one boar at a time.

I've been thinking about what the purpose and value of the mysteries are, and I think what I've come to appreciate most about all this is that it provides such a lovely map of mystical experience: one can confidently say "oh, this is where I am!" and it gives guidance on what you're dealing with and what you can expect to deal with next. At least the little bit I have memory and experience of seems to fit, anyway, and I have good hopes for what comes after.