Talk:Heqet

Regarding Frogs and the Egyptian Blue Lotus

I find it funny the way non-shamans, or those unfamiliar with shamanic practise, interpret the so-called "myths" of Ancient Egypt.

For example the 'Heqet' frog depicted on a lotus, as this article does at least mention. The question becomes why, and the answer is far more simple than most people will acknowledge: the Egyptian Blue Lotus is a source not only of medicine for shamanic practise, but of medicine of several kinds, depending on the part of the plant used, when it is harvested and how, and how it is prepared (western medicine does not understand this aspect of plants primarily because western chemistry just won't acknowledge it for reasons I cannot fathom, but as any bee-keeper well knows, the taste of his honey can very markedly with the season, because it's constituent ingredients alter, depending on what his bees feed; the art and science of wine-making uses these same principles. Very simple. The same applies to all other plants, and a plant that can provide useful, healthful, beneficial medicine in one sesaon, might be incontravertably deadly, or alternatively entirely useless, in it's off-season). But just one of the many applications of the Egyptian Blue Lotus was useful to speed-up labour, by strengthening uterine contractions, and significantly reducing a woman's pain -- that is why it's associated with child-birth. The frog was seen, allegorically, as the 'mother' of the blue Lotus (not of Nefertum, though one could argue, but of the plant itself; and the frog meant more than just that in this context).

Many of the Egyptian "myths" should be taken in an exactly similar way, for many of them are medical texts not mythological texts. In fact, if you know how to interpret them, almost none of the so-called "mythologies" of Egypt are just that -- they are allegories woven around practical, scientific knowledge ~ such as astronomy and medicine, and a few other things besides, in order to hide the knowledge from an unintiated, uneducated person, who might use the medicine in particular in an incorrect way, for example, and poison himself; and to make their "magical spells" (the preparation instructions) easier for the initate to remember. Indeed I have yet to read a single Egyptian text that is pure "mythology" -- like so much from the ancient world, they merely seem to be to the uninitated, dull-witted, modern western literalist ~ rather like having a literal belief in the actual, physical resurrection of a man named Usir, and others like him, rather than taking the story as it was meant to be taken ~ an allegory of something more, or something other. And that is indeed a shame. But the Ancient Egyptians understood human-nature all too well -- as did the Romans ~ when they said "All the people want is bread and circuses" they were not wrong -- and human-nature has never changed. Glorious Goddess (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Supposed link to Kek?

The article mentions: "She is also closely tied to the Ogdoad frog god Kek, a symbol of darkness and impending life." The reference provided does not seem to support any of that, especially not such a "close" bond. In fact, it seems to mention Heket as the female counterpart of Heh (Hauhet), which still doesn't have much to do with Kek and is not even the Heqet the article is about.--Faitu (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)