The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

So, I was thinking, that it could be pretty constructive to start a discussion about Ma'at. With a particular focus on Ma'at as a Deity and how it relates to Ma'at as a concept.

I've, personally, been craving some Kemetic based discussion, and while conversing with a friend on the board, we touched on this topic and it turned out pretty interesting. I've been curious to talk with other Kemetic's about it, and their views.

Personally, I see Ma'at as a Concept and Deity to be inseparable and inherently related. (UPG ahead) I've gotten the sense that it's like two halves of a whole. You can't have the Deity without having the concept. They work together.

Anybody else have some thoughts? Maybe thoughts a little more thought out then my own? ^^

I think I view ma'at in a similar way as well, both as a concept/a force of reality and a goddess in her own right (and I've played with the idea of referring to goddess!Ma'at in a way that makes a difference in speak and thought, but haven't come up with anything conclusive).

I've had the idea in my head for a while now to find some sort of carved or sculpted ma'at figure, but I'm still looking for the right artist to do it. Even since I read about "offering ma'at" in someone ritual script (Sobeqsenu, maybe? I'm not at the right computer to check) it has really stuck with me as something to do when offering to the (Kemetic) gods now.

I'll try and respond further if I can find some spare brain to write with. :

One question to throw out here for others: how do you pronounce "ma'at"?

 
I guess part of what I'm trying to suss out in this discussion is that usual "define your terms" issue: what's a "concept" and what's a "deity" and what's the difference?  I see a lot of overlap, and very little either/or.  Ma'at is Ma'at.  It's sort of like, "Is the ocean alive, or a body of water?" or "are humans made of meat, or feelings?" It's the "or" that trips me up.  

As to pronunciation, I use an "ah" sort of vowel and a small, gentle glottal stop, like in "no one" rather than nothing (like in "ma'am") or a full-on consonant (like in "Qur'an"), personally.

Personally, I see Ma'at as a Concept and Deity to be inseparable and inherently related. (UPG ahead) I've gotten the sense that it's like two halves of a whole. You can't have the Deity without having the concept. They work together.

 
To me, it's not so much as two halves of a whole as perspective. What you see depends on where you're standing and what you're looking for.

I guess part of what I'm trying to suss out in this discussion is that usual "define your terms" issue: what's a "concept" and what's a "deity" and what's the difference?  I see a lot of overlap, and very little either/or.  Ma'at is Ma'at.  It's sort of like, "Is the ocean alive, or a body of water?" or "are humans made of meat, or feelings?" It's the "or" that trips me up.  

As to pronunciation, I use an "ah" sort of vowel and a small, gentle glottal stop, like in "no one" rather than nothing (like in "ma'am") or a full-on consonant (like in "Qur'an"), personally.

I didn't think of this, to be honest. The way one defines their terms, would likely dictate their view of Ma'at. I have a good idea of my definitions (some things are murky for me), but I also think that, in retrospect, it may be hard to understand the place that others are coming from without knowing their definitions. It's a difficult topic to cover, and I likely wasn't as thorough as I should have been. I'm personally speaking in general terms, which likely isn't as helpful as it should be. I'll attempt to get more specific, in order to help.

Deity to me, is not simply a 'god', because I see them as beings with personalities, but not as exact as an actual spirit with a form for me to view (Either through dreams or meditation, etc.) They're like forces with a mind, for me. I feel most comfortable seeing them this way.  Concept is a bit harder for me to put into words, so for this, I pull a dictionary definition. It's simply easier for me to pull a dictionary definition, then to attempt to put it all into words, and end up missing something vital. ^^' Hope you don't mind.

"2. broad principle affecting perception and behavior: a broad abstract idea or a guiding general principle, e.g. one that determines how a person or culture behaves, or how nature, reality, or events are perceived"

This, admittedly, is from Bing. I am going to do some more research on it, because I'd like to be informed more.

 

To me, it's not so much as two halves of a whole as perspective. What you see depends on where you're standing and what you're looking for.

That's.. very true. I didn't think about that, either.
 

I generally see Ma'at the goddess as the personification of the concept, if that makes sense. I mean, obviously. But like, it's more a way to imagine a concept that's incredibly difficult to define and imagine on its own, so Ma'at as a goddess makes it a bit easier to handle, for me at least.

It's not really 'two sides of the same coin' for me, though. I see it more as personification, anthropomorphism, that sort of thing. I haven't experienced Ma'at as a goddess I can connect to in any way the same way I'd do for Sobek or Aset, but I wouldn't rule it out, either. I know others who do have a relationship with Her, but to me, She's much more abstract. It's like, Ma'at as a goddess is a way to understand how Ma'at acts in the world. It's a face to an abstract thing. That's what She is for me.

This makes sense to me. I can see Ma'at-as-Deity in a more abstract version of Deity, then say, the way one would see Djehuty, or Sobek, or Sekhmet. I do consider the two halves a coin thing to be religiously important to me currently, but it may change in the future.

I have thoughts, although I don't know how well I'll do articulating them!

 
So Sekhmet-ma'at is Sekmet in the service of ma'at?

Yes, and now that I think about it some more, I'd probably say that the syncretization with ma'at is more a default state for the netjeru since promotion of ma'at is the goal.

Gah.  I'm thinking myself into a loop.

 
At the risk of saying something that has nothing to do AT ALL with your experience -

I've been playing with this idea of active sacredness versus passive sacredness for several years. I believe everything is inherently sacred (because holy shit it exists! and it could not exist but it does anyway! yay existence!!!!). Everything is 'passively' sacred just by virtue of being.

Active sacredness comes from taking that inherent/passive sacredness and doing things with it. (Maybe the difference between potential/kinetic energy?) So yes, all places are sacred but when I turn my attention to my altar, a holy grove, or a temple, that sacredness is active. Every action I complete is sacred, but if I do it with the intention of noticing its sacredness - if I look at my housework and self-care and social justice work as a manifestation of ma'at/Brighid's Work - then that sacredness shifts from passively existing to actively working in the world.

(It's not a perfect dichotomy and I'm sure it's full of holes. Feel free to poke!)

Anyway. How this relates to your idea re: the gods and ma'at: all netjeru, by virtue of being netjeru, are agents of ma'at in the world(s). (GO TEAM MA'AT!) The -ma'at syncretization at the end of Their name is redundant. However, when the netjeru are specifically turning Their attention and intention toward the propagation of ma'at  and/or smackdown of isfet, then They become Name-ma'at. "Name who is always an agent of ma'at who is currently doing a ton of ma'at in this specific function."

Does that make any sense? Literally just tossing stuff into the breeze.

I get this; I subscribe to the "everything is Divine" POV which is not dissimilar (except where it is - I might split hairs on Divine vs. Sacred a bit because the two words don't quite line up for me...and you know how I am about words!)

Would you mind sharing this distinction? For me, holy/sacred/divine all mean roughly the same thing and my definition may be different than yours.

 

Yes, yes, yes!  This is it, in words!  Words that mean things!  I'm so excited!

(Do you mind if I borrow AKA steal this explanation?)

 
Yay! GO US! Please go ahead and steal to your heart's content.

I'll try.  

From a FlameKeeping perspective, everything is Divine (you, me, the tree, the rock, and my left shoe - ESPECIALLY my left shoe!)  We Divine pieces are all connected as we're all part of the same Whole.

For something to be Divine, it simply has to exist.  But sacredness requires more application of intent to it.  I think my Divine is your passive (intrinsic?) sacredness and my Sacred is your active (extrinsic?) sacredness.  Maybe?

Tying in another thought...

If Divinity is the inherent meaning of a word, then Sacredness is heka.