Black Spirituality Religion : Another Question Concerning Kemetian Theology


Watch Her Flow
Mar 22, 2004
Where the Niger meets the Nile
Sekhemu said:
For the sake of arguement let's say that Neter is another name for Nebertcher, or that Nebertcher is another name for Neter. When Ashby uses the word Neter for the primal creator, this becomes confusing, because what this seems to suggest is that the word Neteru or Neters means more than one God, when in fact it does not.

He's correct in stating that Ra emerged from the waters of Chaos, Nun and that from Ra, the ennead emerged. In this aspect, Ra constitutes a doorway so to speak for the neteru.

You may note that Ra emerging from the waters of chaos, by means of the the God Nefertum, can be related to the components that produce Atomic energy, namely Plutonium(water) Uranium(earth) and fire(The sun)
Thanks Bros Sek and Sun of Ra

My understanding is much clearer now. I'll dispense with the urge to throw Ashby out the window (for now).


Watch Her Flow
Mar 22, 2004
Where the Niger meets the Nile
Br4other Sam's Response

The Definitive Answer of the Samurai
Unabridged and Concise as Websters

Without further preamble I present to you...


I've been trying to respond to your one thread over at Destee all day, but for some reason, whenever I push "SUBMIT", the web page locks up and I have to shut down......L

Luckily, I saved my response to WORD, and I can just send it to you via e-mail.....The only downside to that, is that others won't learn from this.

Thus, without further adieu, here is my response:


river said:
My teacher is gone away and I am full of questions. Ashby
is confusing me. Brothas, help me out please.

My question is simple though I am sure the answer is not.

Who is the supreme Being and creator: Neter or Ra?

Your teacher has gone nowhere, but on the Path of his own continued
Enlightenment. ;)

The question you ask here, is a bit of an oxy-moronic one.

It's like asking "Who is is responsible for this: Me, Myself, or I"?

To which the only appropriate response would be "YES".

However, for the sake of entertaining technicality:

RA is defined 2 ways: as the LIFE-FORCE, and as LIGHT.

As light, RA could not have been the main constituent of Creation, as
even your Bible tells you that "In the Beginning was Darkness".

As the Life-Force--more specifically, the "FORCE" aspect, RA still
could not have been a main constituent, since the Subjective Realm is
one that is inert, at rest, at Peace (HOTEP), and otherwise dormant.

Since RA was the first act of Creation, RA in and of itself was not the
intial creator.

Remember, the counterbalance to RA is "AMEN".

There is a reason why RA UN NEFER AMEN was named such, as his name
means "May The Light Illuminate the Darkness".

Thus, the approprate constituent of Creation would then be NEBERTCHER,
as the other brothers have mentioned here.

NEBERTCHER means "Lord Of All The Worlds". It is the Divine in it's
totally unified, unbridled, unengendered, unperceived magnificence.

It is NEBERTCHER from whence all things come, and with which/whom we
are all one with, and to whom/which we shall all return to.

As for ASHBY, I believe that is teachings are confusing you for 2

#1) His discipline is in the ANUNIAN THEOLOGY, as "opposed" to the
THEOLOGY thread that I made a while back, for the explanation, and feel
free to pose more Q's afterwards.

Suffice it to say, you have already acquainted yourself to the AUSARIAN
theology, which I had purposefully tutored you in FIRST for a reason.

#2) I think you have been reading TANTRIC YOGA, which is quite a bit
advanced, even as I recognized it as such when I suggested it to you. I
did that for a reason as well.

However, there are some other pieces of ASHBY's work that you should
read as a precursor to T.Y........The book ANUNIAN THEOLOGY is a very
good place to start.

It is important to remember, that these teachers (AMEN and ASHBY),
while both prolific, nonetheless disseminate info in a particular order
for a reason.

I hope this helps just a bit.

Thanks. You have added much to my understanding. Your answer here affords me an opportunity to ask one of the questions I have saved on my computer as they arose during my reading. Sorry Sheqhem, no man has the answer that will end all questions.

Amen speculates that a possible reason for creation was so that the undifferentiated being could have something to do. He says that even thought is an objectification. If the otiginal being existed without thought then what caused it to think after the endless eons of eternity past? What brought about this awakening? An even higher being? Or conversely did subjective and objective being coexist in eternity past so that no awakening was necessary?

Is Trump Going to Prison?

  • yes

  • no

Results are only viewable after voting.

Latest profile posts

cherryblossom wrote on watzinaname's profile.
Dropping by to say, "Hi!" ,sister Watz. Hope all is well.
cherryblossom wrote on WARRIOR's profile.
Hey, Warrior! Right On!