Hi Doug,
> Well I guess I don't understand what/how you are
> distinguishing daily from funerary. Living people
> kept the cults of the dead by performing rituals
> and saying the incantations.
I don't really know if you muddle the issue on purpose or if you really, really don't understand what I am trying to explain. Just in case the latter is true, I'll just have one more go (after which I give up, be assured
)
One beliefsystem can have several facets. Such as understanding of what life is, how it works, how it should be lived etc, and on the other side beliefs of what happens to people when they die. Now, while these beliefs make part of the same system and are hence tightly linked, the different facets still do exist. This is especially clear in a beliefsystem based on the conception of duality (represented by the cosmic level of Maat), which divides between day and night, living and dead, Seth and Horus. The same goes for stellar and solar. They are two differebnt sides of the sky, but the sky remains the same, hence you cannot separate them while they are distinctly different and hence link to themselves different functions and associations.
Living people were
> expected to keep the deceased alive by providing
> offerings. Dead kings had massive temples
> dedicated to their "cult" long after they were
> gone, with priest who kept them "alive".
No, the priests didn't "keep the deceased king alive". He was worshipped as a god. That is the very function of a mortuary temple.
I don't
> see how this cosmology can be separated between
> that for the living and that for the dead. All of
> it was for the living to keep them going during
> life and provide some hope or a belief in a "new"
> life after death. So I don't understand what is
> being distinguished as separate the beliefs of the
> living from the beliefs of the dead.
Maybe it would be clearer if you actually read what I write. I am not writing about beliefs of the living and beliefs of the dead. I am writing about the beliefs of the living about life and afterlife i.e. concerning the living and the dead.
>
> As for Osiris and harvest, here is an image of
> some sort of harvest related epithet that sure
> reminds me of Osiris from the 6th dynasty mastaba
> of Kagemni:
It may remind you of many thigs, I'm sure. But the fact remains, that Osris was first an afterlife god linked to sAH. What hebecame afterwards by the association of re-birth is another thing entirely. All I am saying is, that Osris originally being a god of harvest in any form is a serious Budgery.
> The deities in Egypt did not just have funerary
> associations. They had aspects for life as well
> as death. In fact, all of them did. All of them
> had funerary aspects as well as aspects for daily
> life.
Of course they did. Where did I say they didn't?
Also, many kings were shown in Osirid form
> in many of their temples as symbolic of their
> regenerative power in the land. This was most
> certainly not a symbol of death but of life,
> nourishment and refreshment. Ra is a good example
> of this as Ra most certainly had a funerary aspect
> as well as a solar or daytime and living aspect.
For pete's sake, and for the last time: a king was considered to be the son of Ra but as Horus he was also considered to be a son of Osiris!!!! Even if he was the son of Ra, nowhere in the funerary texts can you see him referred to as son of Ra. No, he is Horus, the son of Osiris. Did it ever occur to you to ask yourself why?
Ritva