The concept of “balance” is actively being promoted in the world in various forms these days. “Balance” is encouraged as being the logical and ideal state of being. Curiously, however, I came across this same concept while writing a dissertation in which I had to heavily research the ancient pagan gods of Egypt, where I found that this idea of “balance” was also very prominent.

Now as most of us know, Egypt was the cradle of ancient occult, and it is no small coincidence that in the Bible, “Egypt” is a metaphor for “sin.” The wisdom of Egypt was directly taught to the Egyptian priests by the “gods” themselves. The Bible tells us who the “gods” were; they were not gods at all, but demons. Speaking about the Hebrews who worshipped such gods, Moses wrote: “They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they did not know, to new gods, new arrivals that your fathers did not fear.” (Deuteronomy 32:17). The ancient Egyptians were getting their wisdom and knowledge directly from Satan and his evil angels.

In Egypt there was a “goddess” called Maat. Maat represented a moral law, a code of ethics based on the concept of the balance between “good” and “evil.” At the mention of “good and evil” one’s mind immediately jumps back to the Garden of Eden where this balance was symbolized by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Lucifer has been promoting this “balance” from the very beginning of his rebellion in heaven. Many have not yet realized the significance of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They see it merely as a test of obedience from God. It was indeed a test of obedience, but it was also much more than that, as the name of the tree itself implies. The tree symbolized a certain type of “knowledge,” and the Hebrew word for “knowledge” also means “perception, skill, discernment, understanding, wisdom.” This was a “wisdom” Lucifer had developed that was in conflict with the true wisdom which comes from God and which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17). The wisdom of God is first pure: it has no impurities, not mixture with any foreign substance, therefore no balance between two polar opposites. The results of the two wisdoms is clear: Lucifer’s wisdom led to the death, while the wisdom of God led to life (The Tree of Life).

The foundational reason for Lucifer’s rebellion was the law of God. Lucifer sought to exalt his throne above the stars of God, meaning that he had a law which he felt was superior to God’s law. There can be no throne without law. Any person trying to establish a throne must have something in place to govern his/her kingdom or he/she would be laughed at. And if Lucifer rebelled against the law of God, it stands to reason that he invented another law to replace it, and which he was planning to enforce in his own kingdom. That is another study, but it suffices to say that this balance is metaphorically referred to as the balance between polar opposites of “light and darkness,” “good and evil.” We all know this even better through the concepts of the Yin and Yang, which is nothing else but the “knowledge of good and evil.” This balance is based on a polar duality, and Satan proposes that our optimal state is to have such duality, a harmonious mixture, a balanced mixture of good and evil within our characters.

The Bible clearly positions God completely outside of this circle/balance of polarities when it says that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5) and when it says Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).

The Hebrew word used for “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 is echad, and echad is used in the Bible only in these ways: 1) As a cardinal number, the number 1; 2) as an ordinal number, “first;” 3) as “the same” or “one and the same;” 4) as “oneness” or “singleness;” 5) as undivided “oneness;” 6) as “uniqueness.” Echad is never used to mean a compound or composite unity such as “three in one.” Such a use is not supported by the Hebrew language and its usage in the Old Testament. “When commentators declare that ‘echad means compound, composite unity,’ they haven’t done the required lexical study. For example, the standard Hebrew word to denote joining, unity or togetherness is yachad, not echad.” (Paul Sumner)

Deuteronomy 6:4 was quoted by Jesus as the greatest of all the commandments, and that is so precisely because it leads us into a correct knowledge of God: God is one, the number 1 as opposed to two, the number 2. Why? Because God does not operate by the balance of good and evil: He is “pure,” has no blemish in Him; He is “light,” has no darkness in Him. He is “The Rock,” because He is unmovable in principle and doesn’t vacillate between two polar opposites. He is “holy,” which means He is pure, clean, having no evil whatsoever in Him, no such balance of polarities in Him.

Now going back to Maat, the goddess that represents this balance of good and evil, I am going to share some quotes I came across while researching for my thesis, but the reader should be aware that these quotes are promoting the wisdom from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Lucifer has turned everything upside down, and promotes his law as the law of the universe, the law of order, the law which brings perfect harmony and balance into the cosmos, the law of rightness, righteousness itself, justice and truth. As we know, that is not true, because his law (which we all carry in our hearts until we allow God to cleanse us from it) has created an incredible mess here on earth. These quotes are taken from various Egyptologists and also from the Freemason “bible,” Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike. So without further ado, here they are:

In Egyptian mythology, the goddess Maat (Ua Zit), the wife of Thoth, a god associated with wisdom, and daughter or aspect of the high god Atum, is at once a goddess and an idea, the personification of moral and cosmic order, truth, and justice (maat or mayet, like the Mesopotamian me or Indian dharma) that was as basic to life as breath itself, which in the Coffin Texts Maat also seems to personify. Pharaohs held small models of Maat to signify their association with her attributes. Maat gives breath itself – life – to the kings, and so is depicted holding the symbol of life, the ankh, to their noses. Maat represents the proper relationship between the cosmic and the earthly, the divine and the human, the earth, the heavens, and the underworld. It is she who personifies the meaningful order of life as opposed to the entropic chaos into which it might easily fall. In some stories it is the sun god Re who displaces Chaos with Maat. When a person died his heart was weighed against Maat’s feather. A heart ‘heavy with sin’ would not join the gods. Maat was essentially in all Egyptian gods and goddesses as the principle of divinity itself. The goddess Isis acknowledges the qualities of Maat, as signified by the maat (ostrich feather) she wears behind the crowns of upper and Lower Egypt. Maat might be seen as a principle analogous to the Logos, divine reason and order. As Christians are told ‘In the beginning the Word [Logos] already was’ (John1:1), Atum announces that before creation, “when the heavens were asleep, my daughter Maat lived within me and around me.” David Adams Leeming, The Oxford Companion to World Mythology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 243.


Maat is right order, divinely established order and as such is ‘the Egyptian concept of the arrangement and relationship that underlies and governs all aspects of existence, somewhat akin to the western notion of natural law’ (Allen 1988, 26). Moreover, ‘[i]t extends from the elements of nature…into the moral and social behavior of mankind.’ Maat as ‘order is the principle which makes the whole of existence possible.’ At the same time, it is a life-generating principle and force. (Maulana Karenga, Maat, The Moral Ideal in Ancient Egypt: A Study in Classical African Ethics (New York: Routledge, 2004), 8.)


Maat, as a principle and force constitutive of creation itself, comes to mean, then, an order of rightness which permeates existence and gives life. Thus, Siegfried Morenz (1984, 113) states, ‘Maat is right order in nature and society, as established by the act of creation and hence means according to context, what is right, what is correct, law, order, justice and truth.’ Anthes (1954, 23) also stresses the centrality of Maat as a divinely constituted order. He observes that ‘[the] idea of Maat primarily means the divine order of the world, including the political, theological and social order of Egypt. (Maulana Karenga, Maat, The Moral Ideal in Ancient Egypt: A Study in Classical African Ethics (New York: Routledge, 2004), 8.)


A feeling of rightness pervades the Hall! The concept of divine balance flows from the Complete One. Justice and Order are the watchwords that Atum must maintain. Atum has appointed his daughter, the Goddess Maat to be the personification of this wonderful concept of balance in the universe. A feather, a simple plume, is her symbol. With the lightest touch Maat controls the balance between opposing forces of good and evil to the finest degree. No individual human strength or weakness dominates for very long. The Goddess applies her feather‐light touch to restore divine justice and order in the Ancient land. (Anthony Holmes, Tutankhamun‐Speak My Name (Victoria, B.C: Trafford Publishing, 2005), 8.)


All ancient Egyptian cosmic stories are embedded with the society’s social framework. In other words, the society must conduct its practices in accordance with the same cosmic principle embedded in these stories. The most common story to all Egyptians was that of Ausar (Osiris) and his family. There is not a single complete Egyptian record of it in all the recovered archeological findings. Our knowledge of this Model Story comes from several versions that were written by the early Greek and Roman writers. The most common was the one told by Plutarch. A shortened version of the story of the Egyptian role model goes as follows: The self‐created neter (god) Atum spat out the twins Shu and Tefnut, who in turn gave birth to Nut (the sky) and Geb (the earth/matter). The union of Nut and Geb produced four descendants: Ausar (Osiris), Auset (Isis), Set (Seth), and Nebt‐het (Nephthys). The story goes that Ausar (Osiris) married Auset (Isis), and Set (Seth) married Nebt‐het (Nephthys). Ausar (Osiris) became King of the land (Egypt) after marrying Auset (Isis). The story sets the basis for the matrilineal/matriarchal society. Auset (Isis) is the legal heiress. Ausar (Osiris) and Auset (Isis) represent the principle of duality in the universe. With Ausar and Auset, there is a harmonious polarity: brother and sister, twin souls, husband and wife. Moustafa Gadalla, Egyptian Divinities: The All Who Are the One (Greensborough: Tehuti Research Foundation, 2003), 25.


While the maat precepts, ankh‐em‐maat, ‘living by maat,’ primarily meant respecting the primeval order of the universe and of society, at least from the time of the Wisdom Texts (c.2550 BC), they could also be understood as living decently, as ‘doing the ethical thing.’ As such, it put the ethical justification for a Paradise into the hands of the Egyptians. It even put the link between everyday life, ethics and religion into their hands, since much in the maat was an implicit moral code for this life and not just a criterion for universal and societal order and entry into the afterlife. The ethical aspects of the maat in the negative confession in ‘The Hall of Two Truths’ constituted a moral system, or rather it would have constituted such a system if it was not assumed that the afterlife assessors could be tricked by claiming innocence of all wrongdoing and that magic and fraud were the omnipotent passport to the afterlife. Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, vol. 2 (Algora Publishing, 2004), 42.


The scene of the Psychostasia or Trial of the earthly conduct of the dead, in the Future‐world is very important because of the knowledge it gives of the religion of the Ancient Egyptians. It shows the existence with them of a belief in a judgment, after death, of the soul or conscience; for man’s actions committed whilst in life upon this earth; that his good and evil deeds were thought to originate and reside in his heart; that man had while on earth free will in his actions; that his heart, emblem of his conscience, was after death, mystically weighed by Thoth, symbol of the intellectual part of his spiritual nature; that he was subject to the accusation and opposition of a demon, for actions done while in life on this earth, and after a decree against him to punishment by such demon and his followers. That there were certain specific faults and crimes for which he was liable to such punishment, and these his Ka was obliged to state and show his freedom from, before the Forty‐two assisting judges of Osiris, the death of the dead; that these faults and crimes are mentioned in the Confessions, in the Book termed by Dr. Lepsius, No. cxxv of the Book of the Dead, of which Chapter or Book the scene of the Psychostasia is part; and that in number they were not less that forty‐two. The Ma or Maat i.e. Harmony, Law, Truth, Righteousness, 231-232 likely including an idea similar to the modern idea of the Kosmos, and of that order which is conspicuous in the movement of the heavenly bodies, was believed to be the norm of the entire universe; that the principal desire of the Ancient Egyptian was for his spiritual resurrection from the dead, and an eternal future happy spiritual life in the Egyptian heaven, with perfect liberty to go where he desired: an absence of all punishment, and especially freedom from the danger of annihilation of his spiritual existence, by the ‘Second death. Meyer, Oldest Books in the World, 415


Seth, the embodiment of disorder, was predominantly seen as a rival of Horus, a would‐be usurper who assassinated Osiris and was defeated; Seth was also portrayed in a balanced complementarity with Horus, so that the pair of them represented a bipolar, balanced embodiment of kingship. Thus, on the side of the throne, Horus and Seth—symmetrical and equal—tie the papyrus and lotus around the sema‐sign (sm; “unity”). Edmund S. Meltzer, “Horus” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Ed. Donald B. Redford, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2001 University of Washington. [Accessed 25 April 2011].


As the name [psychostasia] shows, it was “lives” that were weighed up, or “souls,” and in primitive thought a religious idea is easily connected with these vague entities. Another name was kerostasia, “weighing of fates,”…of ‘spirits of the dead… This fragment of eschatology must have been a matter of general belief, for it is recorded by Homer who, with Leschylus, made Zeus the umpire, and it continued till the full Hellenic age, when it was spread abroad on such articles of wide commerce as Attic pottery; its position in popular thought is well illustrated by the comic allusion to it in the Frogs of Aristophanes. Hermes may have been finally adopted as umpire on account of his function as Psychopompos, “conductor of souls,” to their future world. The general idea may well have originated in Egyptian pictures which reached the Greeks, who did not, however, learn their whole meaning; for them it was the mere weighing of fates, devoid of purely moral implications, of which, nevertheless, it bore the dormant seeds which had a vigorous sprouting in after times, especially in Christianity. For there we find the archangel Michael, scion of both Orient and the West, deputy in many matters for the Almighty, acting not only as Leader of the Heavenly Hosts but also as the great Angel of the Dead, and Conductor of their souls to Paradise, but not till he had weighed them in his scales‐in fact, like Hermes, both Psychopompos and Weigher of Fates… This inheritance of functions seems to have originated in the early Christianity of the Near East, which confused him with Hermes or Mercury, as general theory has done till now… The seed‐bed may have been in Egypt, for there…St. Mercurius largely replaced Osiris in the popular mind, and Osiris had been the mighty Umpire at the soul‐weighing; thus we may here have gained an illuminating glance into the mechanism of the fusion of new with old at the replacement of one religious system of beliefs by another. A very modern incarnation of the myth has been kindly brought to my notice by Professor Myers who witnessed it in the streets of Athens in 1893, during Carnival, and published it, with illustrations, under the title “The Miser’s Doom”…The miser died, his soul was extracted, then weighed and found wanting, and underwent its due torture, all at the hands of strolling mummers. The idea of angels of inquisition for the souls of the dead was further engrafted on Islam in its dread pair, Munkir and Nakeer. Hornblower , “The Egyptian Fertility‐Rite,” 28.


And from Morals and Dogma:


At the same time that we judge that a free agent has done a good or a bad act, we form another judgment, as necessary as the first; that if he has done well, he deserves compensation; if ill, punishment… That judgment may be expressed in a manner more or less vivid, according as it is mingled with sentiments more or less ardent. Sometimes it will be a merely kind feeling toward a virtuous agent, and moderately hostile to a guilty one; sometime enthusiasm or indignation… The judgment of merit and demerit is intimately connected with the judgment of good and evil… Merit is the natural right which we have to be rewarded; demerit the natural right which others have to punish us… Reward accorded to merit is a debt; without merit it is an alms or a theft… The Good is good in itself, and to be accomplished, whatever the consequences… Virtue without happiness, and crime without misery, is a contradiction and disorder… This law that attaches pleasure and sorrow to the good and the evil, is, in general, accomplished even here below… To the moral law in the reason of man, corresponds liberty in action. Liberty is deduced from obligation, and is a fact irresistibly evident. Man, as free, and subject to obligation, is a moral person; and that involves the idea of rights. To these ideas is added that of merit and demerit, which supposes the distinction between good and evil, obligation and liberty; and creates the idea of reward and punishment. Morals and Dogma 607‐609.


The distinction of the two Principles was admitted in all the Theologies, and formed one of the principal bases of all religions. It entered as a primary element into the sacred fables, the cosmogonies and the Mysteries of antiquity… The harmony of the Universe is a combination of contraries, like the strings of a lyre, or that of a bow, which alternately is stretched and relaxed.” “The good,” says Euripides, “is never separated from the Evil … The two must mingle, that all may go well.” …“And this opinion as to the two principles, continues Plutarch, is that of all antiquity. From the Theologians and Legislators it passed to the Poets and Philosophers. Its author is unknown, but the opinion itself is established by the traditions of the whole human race, and consecrated in the Mysteries and sacrifices both of the Greeks and Barbarians, wherein was recognized the dogma of opposing principles in nature, which, by their contrariety, produce the mixture of good and evil … We must admit two contrary causes, two opposing powers, which lead, one to the right and the other to the left, and thus control our life … This doctrine … has been generally received by most nations, and especially by those who have had the greatest reputation for wisdom … All have admitted two gods, with different occupations, one making the good and the other the evil found in nature. The former has been styled “God,” the latter “Demon … ibid 555‐556.


The ROYAL SECRET, of which you are Prince, if you are a true Adept, if knowledge seems to you advisable, and Philosophy is, for you, radiant with a divine beauty, is that which the Sohar terms The Mystery of the BALANCE…by which vices and base actions, and ungenerous thoughts and words are crimes and wrongs, justly punished by the law of cause and consequence… ibid 724‐725.


There is in nature one most potent force, by means whereof a single man, who could possess himself of it, and should know how to direct it, could revolutionize and change the face of the world. This force was known to the ancients. It is a universal agent, whose Supreme law is equilibrium…and whereby, if science can but learn how to control it, it will be possible to change the order of the Seasons, to produce in night the phenomena of day, to send a thought in an instant round the world, to heal or slay at a distance, to give our words universal success, and make them reverberate everywhere… There is a Life-Principle of the world, a universal again wherein are two natures and a double current, of love and wrath. This ambient fluid penetrates everything. It is a ray detached from the glory of the Sun, and fixed by the weight of the atmosphere and the central attraction. Pike, Morals and Dogma, 616.


If anyone is interested in reading more about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil please read “The Demonization of God Unmasked” and the thesis “The Magic Flute and the Moral Law of Opposing forces.”



Denice Grant


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *