Does anybody have experience with Osiris

It is true that they do have their own individuality and sapience. Not only that, but they have human egogores that they incarnate into in order to grow, evolve, experience physicality and interact more directly with the physical world. Tutenkamen was one, but he did not understand Set’s decisions. Or at least, that’s my UPG hehe.

Sure thing! After all, since deities are just characters in myths, any number of living consciousnesses can become most of them if they meet the requirements! Your deities may change their behaviors, as an example, but if it’s not a part of their mythic functionality, always investigate the possibility that the interface you’re using to interact with that consciousness- the deity you call by name, rite, etc- connected to a different consciousness fitting the same conditions. :slight_smile:

In other words, unless you’re using connectors like names specifically given by a consciousness to access that individual, there’s the chance that the interface you’re using- the mythic deity name and characteristics- was simply connected to another being that is a different Set, as an example. Magic is extremely fluid! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Ok you been using UPG a lot What does it mean ?

Unverified personal Gnosis.

UPG is when you experience something but unable to verify it. Just as SPG is shared personal Gnosis when multiple people experience the same thing or similar things without frontloading the other.


Many Pharaohs were thought to be reincarnations of Horus as well as Set, which I tend to believe personally to a degree.

I simply tend to not agree with silly ideas that they are just blobs of energy with traits that you can copy and paste onto other things. To me those individuals can’t tell the difference between their created thoughtforms from these living beings. There’s one Set, one Osiris, one Anubs, etc in the Egyptian pantheon, their elemental energies can be shared by many individuals but not who they are as individuals.

Were have you been @Qayos welcome back :pray:t4: Interesting points have been made here though but I don’t really agree with the termination or connection to set in this . It’s all to me a reference to a Things that are not connected to Egyptian deitys ! @Velenos I share your views on the Egyptian Parthenon and the aspects of their deities.


I have seen ideas that Aset is a younger version of Serqet, Nephthys a younger version of Neith, and Set a younger aspect of Nun which was an idea brought on as to why Osiris had to go through a rebirth from a sky deity to an underworld deity as his siblings did something similar.

I have yet to confirm this however.

1 Like

No that is true if you read the ancient Egyptians text from the book of the dead and the book of life you get one version but the problem is the translation of the book of the dead ! Their are to many versions made by people that did not understand their ancient Egyptian so they translated it wrong. The rebirth story of Osiris is one.

1 Like

I view Osiris rebirth as more of a ritualistic necessity for him, not the “Set cut him up and killed him so Aset had to bring him back” ideology.

1 Like

Eh. I agree reality is fluid but entities who say “my name is set” i dont ignore this and say "well set is like lucifer so he must be " “apep is a snake and lucifer is said to become a snake…so they are the same!”

Entities are who they say they are. Thats what i believe unless they are pranksters or parasites.

1 Like

True, though there are entities that share the same name just as we can share the same name. So it’s like “my name is set” which one? the demon, the God? the human, etc rather than “my name is set of the Egyptian pantheon” and another entity goes “Oh yeah? let me copy and paste that and be set of the Egyptian pantheon too” that’s where things get silly.

1 Like

There’s a key element that you’re not getting from /is not coming across in my post! :slight_smile:

What I’m talking about isn’t a mutual equivalence between mythological deity identities. It’s that the consciousness you’re interacting with, in that context, is more than just the interface pattern of the mythical or described spirit. Let’s be real; language is an imperfect method of communication between human persons- why assume it is a perfect encapsulator/cartographer of spiritual reality?

“As above, so below”. As language is not perfect for talking to each other, it’s not perfect for communicating with or even describing entities. Most magicians who can actually call themselves that (the ones that practice) have had experiences that are “wordless” or “impossible to describe”. Language is, in essence, not innately perfect.

So, why would you ever think that information which can (for the most part) only be communicated in language, perfectly captures any spiritual being?

It can be used as a reference and as a way to form an interface, sure. But what we’re talking about is information, here- the informational/conceptual scope of language is the limitation, between humans, and is a massive restriction in understanding the totality of individual consciousnesses, between awarenesses.

These ‘bits’ or ‘packages’ of information I’m talking about when I mean identities are in the shape of the character spirits have taken in their compression into cohesive observation by humans. “Experiences create entities”, is a rare axiom but a worthwhile one. By and large, the language-form depictions of spiritual beings as mythical characters also encode experiences into the makeup of the identities, which can be converted into no, few, some, or many forms. For example, Osiris getting killed by Set and chopped up; depending on the set variable(s) that can be altered or removed from these events, more beings can intentionally or inadvertently begin resonating with the pattern of the depicted /terminology of concepts that are given name. The amount or quality/type of experiences that need to be observed in order to resonate with the language-form AKA Osiris vary between identities/characters, sometimes significantly.

So, when I say, “I’ve met four Osirises”, I don’t mean “I’ve met three beings similar to Osiris, and Osiris”, I mean met 4 individual consciousnesses that observed at least a threshold of experiences necessary to resonate with the linguistic concept of Osiris as depicted, AKA, 4 discrete Osirises, even if they are different individuals, that all separately count as an individual Osiris from a functional magical standpoint and from a mythic one.

That doesn’t mean they are only Osiris, though. Since they are 4 individual consciousnesses, they can, on their own, meet different conditions (intentionally or not) that would bring their resonance with the depictions of various characters into magical viability.

So, to sum it up, an entity can absolutely be who they say they are. On the other hand, they can certainly be far more than they say they are at first meet, but that’s at least in part due to the mythical/depicted character interfaces we’re using to interact with individual consciousnesses that have the same experiences/energies/powers as the framework we use to approach them.

Make sense? :slight_smile:


To each their own. I just personally dont believe that.

1 Like

“Make sense?” Yes! Makes perfect sense to me! Thank you Qayos!

1 Like

It’s a big infinity, we have divine right to access all of it, and there is nothing outside ourselves. There is no external reality. Just more of the internal mirroring more of the internal.

With that said, are dreams TRULY consistent? Do they have to be?

Ever had a dream, realized you were dreaming, started dreaming lucidly yet still found stuff changing a lot each time you came back to it? Dreams are fluid. So is magick. Everything and every other-self you meet is essentially both your own creation and yet paradoxically that which already was and therefor not your creation but merely your experience of the already “created” Nothing “real” is fully real and non-illusory and nothing “unreal” or “illusory” is 100% unreal or illusory.

The only truth I really believe in is the inherent oneness of all things. We are all that universal sense of “I am” all else is not us, but that which we are experiencing.

So it is VERY fluid.

Why then wouldn’t there be infinite Osiruses or Sets or Abraxases or Apeps or Thor’s or Odins or Amaterasus or Zeuses or Apollos or Taxes as or Aphrodites or Hermeses or Poseidons or Quetzalcoatls etc? Do you honestly think you are the only version of YOU in infinity? It’s a big infinity after all. There are probably infinite. Infinite Nates, Infinite Qayoses, Infinite Velenoses, etc.

What makes one of us any more the “one true” version of ourselves than any other? What defines us as what we identify as? Do we think that definition uniquely applies to us out of all infinite selves? Do we think that is the real self? The only true self is that sense of “I am” which is the same in all other-selves and is eternal. All else is fluid and imperminent, and is not the true self.

1 Like

Sure thing! It’s one of those axiomatic universal truths that exists regardless of belief, human history, or any such argumentative thought, and I tried to explain that as simply as possible with basic facts, such as observed events creating entities, and the inherently imperfect linguistic patterns used to interface with certain entity types. Those that are ready for such information will find it, and those who aren’t will disparage it! Such is how it goes when unveiling deep info. :slight_smile:

I will offer a correction to your second post though; only that which we can perceive is mirrored by our consciousness. In other words, until/ unless directly observed, there is reality which is external/foreign to the individual. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Well, whatever. We all have time.

We are ourselves subject to rules, in order to help hone our ingenuity and creativity.

I actually explained it on another (more RHP oriented) spiritual forum just before checking this one. But I used to be an ass on that forum, so I have to have my comments approved by a moderator before they can be posted. Meaning I can’t copy/paste it here to explain what I’m getting at, but think of it like this: we subject ourselves to limitations so we can hone our sense of ingenuity and creativity by learning to transcend them. Then we re-enter a state of unbound infinity, applying what we learned about ourselves along the way so that we can apply said ingenuity to a completely unrestrained exploration of our infinite and creative self.

1 Like

That’s true! The reason most beings reincarnate is to further expand their observations, which in turn increases their scope of possibilities and knowledge on how to make use of them. The key element is observed time! :slight_smile:

1 Like