Home Life Works Texts Gallery Literature Wish List
News Letters Bookshop Donations Links Mailing List Contact




One of the most frequent criticisms brought against the Religion of the Disk by modern authors is that it is devoid of the sense of righteousness. Sir Wallis Budge writes plainly that “no consciousness of sin is expressed in any Aten text now known, and the hymns to Aten contain no petition for spiritual enlightenment, understanding or wisdom.”1 In another passage, after comparing Aton to Varuna as described in the Rig-Veda, he adds: “But Varuna possessed one attribute which, so far as we know, is wanting in the Aten: he spied out sin, and judged the sinner.”2 And J. H. Breasted, though, contrarily to Budge, he on the whole admires the Teaching, tells us that “our surviving sources for the Aton faith do not disclose a very spiritual conception of the deity, nor any attribution to him of ethical qualities beyond those which Ra had long been supposed to possess. Our sources do not show us that the king had perceptibly risen from a discernment of the beneficence to a conception of the righteousness in the character of God, nor of His demand for this in the character of men.”3 There is hardly anyone but Sir Flinders Petrie and A. Weigall who seem fully to appreciate the “great change” which marks Akhnaton’s reign “in ethics also,”4 and to recognise the practical value of the Teaching put forward in the hymns, in the tomb inscriptions of Tell-el-Amarna, and

1 Sir Wallis Budge: Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 115.
2 Sir Wallis Budge: Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 114.
3 J. H. Breasted: Cambridge Ancient History (Edit. 1924), Vol. II, p. 120. Similar criticism is made by J. D. S. Pendlebury in Tell-el-Amarna (Edit. 1935), pp. 156-157 and p. 160.
4 Sir Flinders Petrie: History of Egypt (Edit. 1899), Vol. II, p. 218. Arthur Weigall: Life and Times of Akhnaton (New and Revised Edit. 1922), p. 152.


in the luminous instance of Akhnaton’s life as a ruler and as a man.

Yet even Weigall, when comparing the Religion of the Disk with Christianity, is prompted to state that “this comparison must of necessity be unfavourable to the Pharaoh’s creed, revealing, as it does, its shortcomings.”1 This opinion, so entirely different from ours, springs eventually from that idea, more strongly expressed by other authors, that the consciousness of evil is lacking in the Religion of Aton.

It is a fact that in the existing documents relating to the Teaching, there is no exhaustive list of commandments and prohibitions, no precise rules — no rules at all — for the guidance of the disciple’s life, such as one finds in the sacred books of most religions. There is no mention of a distributive Justice, and it is possible, even probable, that Akhnaton disbelieved “in the dogma of rewards for the righteous and punishments for the evil-doers.”2 There is, indeed, nowhere the slightest hint at the existence of a positive Power of evil, age-old Antagonist of a beneficent God and master of deceit, as the Satan of the Bible; nowhere the slightest awareness of what later ethical religions have styled as “sin” — i.e., the transgression of God’s orders. Akhnaton’s God gave no orders. He is an “amoral” God. We must remember that He is not a man; nor a being superior to man who made man in his likeness. He is the immanent Power within all things; the Source of life — not a person; the One indefinable Principle that burns in heat, shines in light, roars and sings in sound, moves through matter as electricity; the Principle that exists at the root of the ultimate unity of existence. Can such a God be reduced to our petty standards? Can He be “good” or “bad” at our scale? — be “moral” or “immoral”? No immanent God can be. To no God who bears to the physical universe the intimate relation which Akhnaton’s “Shu-within-the-Disk” bears to it, can be ascribed a moral personality. His consciousness, if any, is not a personal one. His love for His creatures is as indiscriminate as the

1 Arthur Weigall: Life and Times of Akhnaton (New and Revised Edit. 1922), p. 127.
2 Sir Wallis Budge: Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 95.


warmth of the Sun-beams, that radiate both over the good and over the wicked. The idea of a distributive Justice is a human idea — not God’s concern. Morality is in us; not in Him.

* * *

Should then a follower of Akhnaton take the easy course of doing just what he pleases?

The Founder of the Religion of the Disk insisted upon “life in truth.” “There is in his Teaching, as it is fragmentarily preserved in his hymns and in the tomb-inscriptions of his nobles, a constant emphasis upon ‘truth’ such as is not found before or since,” says Breasted.1 He called himself “Ankh-em-Maat” — “the One-who-lives-in-Truth.” But what is truth? “Maat,” writes that learned scholar in hieroglyphics whom we have many times quoted, Sir Wallis Budge, “means what is straight, true, real, law, both physical and moral, the truth, reality, etc.”2 By “living in truth” the king, adds he, “can hardly have meant ‘living in or by the law,’ for he was a law to himself. But he may have meant that in Atenism he had found the truth or the ‘real’ thing, and that all else, in religion, was a phantom, a sham. Aten lived in maat, or in truth and reality, and the king, having the essence of Aten in him, did the same.”3

If this interpretation of maat be the right one, then it appears that a man’s behaviour should be, in Akhnaton’s eyes, inspired by the knowledge of the few facts and the acceptance of the few supreme values which form, as we have seen, the solid background of the Aton faith. These facts were the oneness of the ultimate essence, and the unity of all life, its manifold and ever-changing expression; the fatherhood of the Sun and, through Him, of the Power within Him — Cosmic Energy — and the subsequent brotherhood of all living creatures, not of man alone; the unity of the visible and of the invisible world, of the physical — the material —

1 J. H. Breasted: Cambridge Ancient History (Edit. 1924), Vol. II, p. 120.
2 Sir Wallis Budge: Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 86.
3 Sir Wallis Budge: Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), pp. 86-87.


and of the more subtle, as put forward in the identity of the fiery Disk with the Heat and Light within it. In other words, they were the few general truths which modern research is gradually confirming, and which would still satisfy, it seems, the thinking men of the remotest ages to come. The Religion was the only true religion, and “all but it was a phantom, a sham,” in the sense that it was not a particular creed, with undeniable religious appeal but, also, with necessary limitations destined to become more and more apparent as centuries would pass; not a religion among many, but the framework from which no teaching could seriously depart if it was to be absolutely universal, and to stand victoriously the test of time. It set forth no commandments; it had no catalogue of “dos” and “don’ts.” Yet it could be, and was, a guide to behaviour, for the reason that our behaviour is the outcome of what we are — that is to say, of what we know and of what we love. The Religion of the Disk was based upon the intuitive knowledge of this harmonious universe, dominated (at our scale at least) by the Sun, our “Father and Mother,” and upon the love of its beauty. He who possessed these needed no commandments in order to live according to the Master’s standards — in harmony with the beautiful world, in harmony with life, with his own deeper nature; “in truth.”

The visible universe obeys laws — those great cosmic laws, of whatever nature they be, that bring into it that majestic order of which the trained human mind can catch a glimpse; the laws that rule the course of the stars and the play of matter. The invisible world, likewise, has its laws of action and reaction, no less true. He who wishes to “live in truth” should not only think of those divine unwritten laws “both physical and moral,” and act rationally, in small things as well as in great ones, but strive to reflect, at his scale, the beauty of the sunlit earth and the impartial kindness of the Power within the Sun. He should love all creatures as himself — as He loves them, Whose rays cause them to live. He should do no harm to them under any pretext; injury to the humblest beast or bird, on the part of a rational being who should know better, is an insult to the Lord of life, a


sacrilege. But that is not enough; he should help them to live and to be happy; to enjoy the light and heat of the common Father and render praise to Him, each one in the manner of its species. He can only be fully rational — in tune with the higher ends of his nature — if he be actively loving, and beneficent to all that lives, as Akhnaton himself, judged by the spirit of his beautiful hymns, appears to have been.

One must remark that this faithfulness to a divine pattern, this feeling of the beauty and importance of life, this active, impartial beneficence were not ordered by the young king as befitting a true follower of his Teaching. They were part and parcel of the personality of whoever was fit to be a disciple. And the Teaching was wasted upon those who, by nature, did not possess a sufficient sensitiveness and a sufficient intelligence to be already inclined that way, in their better moments at least. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Akhnaton seems to have actually preached his doctrine only to a very few people. By the nature of the worship it involved, the Religion of the Disk was, as we have said, suitable to all creatures, from the superman down to the sunflower. But in its practical implications it supposed such a degree of inborn refinement that, far from being applicable to all men, it was, and probably will always remain, a Teaching for the elite. Its morality, essentially aesthetic, and therefore aristocratic, was too free and too generous for the many to understand — a reason why the Aton faith has so often been characterised in our times as entirely “amoral.”

There appears to be some ambiguity about the word “morality.” What commonly passes off as such would be better described as obedience to the rules of some definite society at a definite stage of development; to police regulations in the broader sense. According to that popular conception, what one does is more important than what one is; what one is only matters inasmuch as it cannot but determine what one thinks and feels, and ultimately what one does, when left to one’s self. And what one has to do or not to do is decided by the requirements of the community to which one belongs. In all successful religions, the list of “moral” commandments and prohibitions is intimately


linked up with the idea of community, of society; and its practical stability depends upon its susceptibility of receiving various interpretations as the conception of society changes with time and place. Its aim is mainly to make each one of the faithful the worthy member of a human group, or of several broadening human groups — family, tribe or caste, nation, race, humanity.

In the Religion of the Disk, there was no such conception of gregarious obligations. It was not a religion fitting the members of any particular group at any particular epoch; it was the Teaching suited to the fully-conscious individual, in love with the beauty of the Sun and aware, through Him, of his personal relationship to the whole of living creation. The fully-conscious individual — of which the Founder of the religion is himself a luminous prototype — has transcended the bondage of all arbitrary communities. He is actually the member of no group, save of the totality of sentient individuals of all races and species. He owes allegiance to the Father of life alone. He fulfils the “duties” that other men recognise towards their narrow groups, but not for the same reasons nor in the same spirit as they; whenever those duties do not clash with the broader and more fundamental obligation of love towards all life, he fulfils them, in the very name of that deeper obligation. In other cases he does not look upon them as duties. The natural law of his being is the only law of his conduct. And his conduct is consistent with a norm of inner beauty never approached by any group-regulations, precisely because his being has attained the elegance of natural honesty, natural courage and natural kindness. He can do what he pleases, and remain an exponent of reason and of love; nay, indeed, it is only by acting thus, according to his own law, that he is able to remain so; for love and reason are at the root of his being, and he is aware of it.

Breasted says, in his comment on the meaning of “life in truth,” that for Akhnaton “what was was right, and its propriety was evident by its very existence.”1 Surely the learned historian does not intend to say that, to the young

1 J. H. Breasted: Cambridge Ancient History (Edit. 1924), Vol. II, p. 120.


Pharaoh — who himself acted so differently from others in his private and public life — all that it was the custom to do was right, simply because people did it; still less that, in his eyes, all that a man did was right, just because it had been possible for him to do it. This would be absurd. The king’s life-long struggle against organised superstition, and his strange attitude in front of the political “realities” of his age, prove sufficiently that he did not accept any established tradition as a criterion of right and wrong. And his indignant letter to Aziru, on the murder of one of his most faithful vassals, preserved to posterity in his diplomatic correspondence, shows well that no action became justified, in his eyes, on the sole ground of being a fait accompli. To him, all that was, in the ordinary sense — all that had happened, or that generally used to happen — was not necessarily right. But what was absolutely, in the religious sense; that is to say, what was always and everywhere; what was, in the estimation of the higher consciousness, more subtle, more acute, more farseeing than the ordinary — the consciousness of cosmic truth, physical and moral — that was right, and that alone.

* * *

From the previous remarks we should, it seems, conclude that though it comprised no particular series of commandments and prohibitions as most other religions do, the Aton faith was far from being without any definite moral implications. That these concerned what one was to be, more than what one was to do; that they pointed out to the spirit in which one was to act, more than to one’s action itself, only stresses all the more their truly ethical character. For if there be a fundamental difference between genuine morality and glorified police regulations, it lies no doubt in the flexibility and freedom of moral actions, compared with those ruled by written law or by custom. A really moral action — or abstention — is a work of art in which the whole personality of the agent is involved, a creation stamped with individuality. The action resulting from mere obedience to precise imperatives


is not. Anybody can blindly move according to well-formulated dictates. It is not up to everyone to reflect the serene beauty of the Father of Life; to radiate love — to live in truth. The actual saints of all religions have consciously or unconsciously striven to do so, while average men have always been impressed by the letter of moral injunctions rather than by their spirit.

The real difference between the Religion of the Disk and most other faiths is that, while the latter have provided strict rules of conduct for every person who wishes to adhere to them, Akhnaton’s Teaching has not. It merely created an aesthetic atmosphere in which the sensitive soul could easily lift itself towards the everlastingly beautiful, that is both the true and the good. It set forth an object of inspiration — life; and an object of worship — the Sun, source of life — such as whoever loved these with all his senses, with all his heart and all his intellect, would automatically be the most virtuous of men. But it did not go down into details, and tell the disciple what to do or not to do in every particular circumstance of his life. That was left to his own ability for grasping moral truth: that is to say, finally, to a sort of aesthetic intuition. The Aton faith was, as we have already said, an aristocratic one. It ignored the average man with his blunt senses, his awareness to immediate gains and losses, his naturally narrow outlook. It ignored the precise, trivial, compelling necessities of organised society. Those alone could be Akhnaton’s disciples who needed not explicit “dos” and “don’ts” in order to be truthful, courageous and kind; those who can be described as “the saints” in opposition to the rank-and-file “sinners”; the elite, in opposition to the general herd of mediocre liars and cowards, too weak even to be consistently bad.

This brings us back to one of our remarks in a previous chapter — namely, that the Religion of the Disk was an expression of the very essence of true religion in the most harmonious language of reason and beauty, rather than a particular creed. We can say of its ethical side something similar to that which we have said of its philosophy: it was, as put forward in the famous royal motto, “living in Truth,”


the essence of moral life, independent of man-made codes of morals, and freed from the fear of hell-fire no less than from that of human sanctions. Akhnaton gave out no commandments, just as he proclaimed no dogmas. The few who were able to enter the spirit of his Teaching needed none. And those who lacked that sort of aesthetic sense which alone enables one to grasp vital cosmic values, would not have been actually “living in truth” even if, with the help of a moral code, they had been doing all that a true disciple of the young king should do — any more than a man with no taste can become an artist just by following all the technical rules of an art.

* * *

If anything can rouse in a man that yearning to live in harmony with eternal values that dominate him, it is surely not the tedious observance of duties imposed upon him, once and for all, by law or by custom. But it may be the glowing example of a superior individual. All the great teachers of the world — the founders of lastingly successful religions — seem to have been far greater by the personal example they have set than by the precepts they have left, however sublime these be.

The absence of explicit precepts, easily applicable to every circumstance of life, was perhaps (just as the other negative features which we have mentioned in a previous chapter) one of the traits of profound rationality which prevented the Aton faith from remaining an organised religion. While the example of its Founder stands for ever to inspire all those who believe that ceremonial alone should be organised, real religion being essentially personal — and unorganisable. The ethics of the Religion of the Disk were based, we said, upon cosmic values (not merely social ones). One should add that they were based upon cosmic values as realised by one exceptional man. The historic figure of Akhnaton dominated them even still more, perhaps, than it did the other aspects of the Teaching, all of which are inseparable from it. The one duty which the disciples


readily accepted was to imitate him whom they called the “Bright Image of the Sun,” the “Son of the Living Aton, like unto Him forever.” And that would be, it seems, the only duty to propose to any man who might wish, in the future, to revive the thirty-three-hundred-year-old religion of love and reason, and make the young Prophet of the Sun, once more, a living force in our world. By imitating him we mean not servilely copying his actions, but imbibing the spirit in which he lived; developing in one’s self the characteristic features of his personality: uncompromising truthfulness, perfect sincerity, allied to the rare courage to stick to what one knows to be right, even at the cost of the highest worldly interests; and along with that, loving kindness, extended to all creatures.

In the tomb of Ay, one of his nobles, one finds in an inscription the words: “He” (Akhnaton) “put truth into me, and my abomination is to lie.” It is difficult to say, in the light of Ay’s subsequent career, how far this assertion was genuine on his part. But it does express the ideal attitude of a disciple of the young king. All wrong, in Akhnaton’s eyes, was but a lie under some form or another; a denial of the positive law of eternal life, which is love; a denial of man’s deeper self, which is in tune with the Cosmos, not at war with it. The follower of the Religion of the Disk had really but to seek the truth of his deeper self, and to live up to it in full sincerity. The example of the Master showed him how beautiful could be the life of a man who did so.

* * *

The importance of Akhnaton himself as a living illustration of his Teaching cannot be overestimated. He was, it seems, fully conscious of it when, in his hymns, he gave to posterity such sentences as the following: “I am Thy Son, satisfying Thee, exalting Thy name. Thy strength and Thy power are established in my heart; Thou art the living Disk; eternity is Thine emanation (or attribute). . . .” “He” (i.e., Aton, the One God) “hath brought forth His honoured Son, Ua-en-ra (the Only One of the Sun) like His own form, never


ceasing so to do. The Son of Ra supporteth His beauties”1; or when he wrote the significant passage already quoted: “Thou art in my heart. There is no other who knoweth Thee except Thy Son Nefer-kheperu-ra Ua-en-ra (Beautiful Essence of the Sun, Only One of the Sun). Thou hast made him wise to understand Thy plans and Thy power”2; or the following words, still more strange at first sight: “Every man who (standeth on his) feet since Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, Thou hast raised up for Thy Son who came forth from Thy body, the King of the South and the North, Living in Truth, Lord of Crowns, Aakhun-Aten, great in the duration of his life (and for) the Royal Wife, great in majesty, Lady of the Two Lands, Nefer-neferu-Aten Nefertiti, living (and) young for ever and ever.”3

These bold statements of his relationship to God cannot be understood in their proper sense unless one replaces them in their context, that is to say, in the whole system of ideas at the basis of the Religion of the Disk; especially unless one connects them with that hardly less bold assertion that the “Heat-and-light-within-the-Disk” and the Disk itself — Energy and Matter — are one. This having been proved correct as a result of modern scientific speculations (correct, at least, in the manner of an hypothesis which does actually account for the known facts) cannot be called “dogma.” Yet, religiously speaking, as we have previously tried to explain,4 it argues the substantial unity of God (an impersonal God, of course) and Nature, visible and invisible; the existence of the same unchangeable Thing — divine Energy — at the bottom of all things visible and invisible, material and immaterial, which change everlastingly. In other words, for as much as one is able to infer from the hymns — his only surviving works — Akhnaton’s Teaching seems to have been founded on an implicit if not explicit pantheistic monism.

1 Shorter Hymn, Translation of Sir Wallis Budge, Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 120.
2 Longer Hymn, Translation of Sir Wallis Budge, Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 134.
3 Longer Hymn, Translation of Sir Wallis Budge, Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 135.
4 In Chapter V.


As we have already endeavoured to make clear in a former chapter,1 the young king’s claim to be the Son of God (without his pretending, as other Pharaohs, to have been miraculously conceived from any particular deity) was nothing but the expression of the total consciousness he had of the presence of the ultimate Essence of all things within him; the assertion, repeated at various epochs, by the author of the Chandogya Upanishad and by the fully “realised” souls of all the world, that he “was That.”

What we wish to stress here is that, though he found nowhere around him anyone who possessed, like him, the knowledge of the Unchangeable within the transient, of Godhead within nature and within man, he was aware that this direct, sensuous, so as to say, experience of oneness was the goal of created life. And he was aware that he himself, who had reached it, stood apart from the average man — as far apart from him, indeed, as he from the crowd of still less awakened sentient beings, if not further; apart from him, and yet linked up with him, as each definitely superior species is linked up with the less conscious ones that precede and condition its coming into being. He was a man — physically conceived and born as all men — and yet more than a man. He was, not merely in name but in fact, the Beautiful-Essence-of-the-Sun, since he felt that Essence, that indefinable Energy, running through his nerves; the Only-One-of-the-Sun, since he alone was aware of the real nature of the fiery Disk, while other creatures, though worshipping It, knew It but dimly or not at all; Akhnaton — the Joy of the Sun — since every new step towards more complete consciousness brought new joy (experience had taught him that), and since the Soul of the Sun, which is the Soul of the Universe — the One without second2 — became fully conscious of Itself within him; the Son of God, Who was alone to know His Father. As the visible Disk and the invisible, intangible “Heat and Light,” the Energy within it, were one, so was he one with that same all-pervading Radiant Energy experienced within him. And he knew it. His

1 Chapter V, pp. 119-120.
2 “Ekam aditiyam” in the Sanskrit Scriptures.


nerves knew it. His body — an atom of matter finally tracing its origin to our parent star (like all matter on earth) — was aware of the Power within its depth; of its soul, which is none but the Sun’s own Essence, which is God. God and created nature were one in him, Akhnaton, precisely because he was not, by a miraculous birth, set apart from nature, but was a man naturally conceived and born and reared. They were all the more one because he was, also, a man who, with both his exceptional intellectual gifts and his clear insight into eternal truth beyond the reach of pure intellect, lived to the full the happy natural life of all creatures. On the other hand, he could and he did live the natural life of the body and of the mind in perfect beauty and “in truth,” only because he fully knew the higher meaning of it; because he was a “realised soul,” a perfect Individual — a Son of God.

* * *

Now, perhaps, we can venture to explain what appears to be the strangest of those assertions of Akhnaton’s divinity, to which scholars hardly ever refer in their comments on his religion save, at most, like Sir Wallis Budge, in a spirit of biased criticism which misses the point. The statement we are thinking of is the last one quoted in a preceding paragraph: “Every man who (standeth on his) feet, since Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, Thou hast raised up for Thy Son who came forth from Thy body, the King of the South and the North, living in Truth, etc. . . . and for the Royal Wife, great in majesty, Lady of the Two Lands, Nefer-neferu-Aten Nefertiti, living and young for ever and ever.”1

Taken literally, this would seem to indicate that Akhnaton believed all men to have been born and to have lived for himself and for his consort, from the dawn of the human race onwards, which is obviously not what he intended to say. But if, as we have tried to show above, the young Pharaoh was aware at the same time of his divinity as a

1 Longer Hymn, Translation of Sir Wallis Budge, Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 135.


fully conscious centre of Cosmic Energy and of his humanity as one who had human parents; and if, in his eyes, to reach that total consciousness of the divine within one’s self was to exhaust the highest possibilities of our species (becoming one’s self, so as to say, the culmination of it), then the amazing passage appears in a new light. It has a meaning, and a lofty one, too. It signifies that since the time, far-gone indeed, when God did “lay the foundation of the earth,” the whole scheme of life has been steadily tending towards the creation of its supreme type: the God-conscious and therefore godlike human being — the Son of God. It means that every individual man was born with latent possibilities of Godhead which he would generally not feel at all, or feel more or less dimly; which he would perhaps try to express, in art and life, but which the fully conscious superman alone — the cosmic Individual, God and himself in one — was destined to carry to their utmost realisation. And that Individual, aware of his real nature and “living in Truth”; that eternal Man in whose heart were “established” the “strength and the power” of the living Disk, was himself, the “King of the South and the North, Lord of Crowns” — Akhnaton of Egypt, son of Amenhotep Neb-maat-ra, a very definite figure in time and space. He knew none who had, in his days or before, attained to a similar consciousness of their identity with the Soul of the Sun. And we, who have heard the names of several very ancient sages said to have realised Godhead within themselves, know not if they actually flourished before or after him, for their lives are not dated. It may be that some of them indeed preceded him in time. It may be that many more, of whom nobody has heard, preceded them. It may be also that Akhnaton was, in fact, the first man to realise “in his heart,” to the full, the presence of that same hidden Energy which radiates in the Sun-disk — that he was the forerunner, in a way, of a new species, superior to man. He is, at least, the first such one whose life can be followed step by step, with historical certitude, and dated with an approximation of but a few years.

That idea that he was the culmination of an evolution


which had begun with the “foundation of the world” was perhaps at the root of the public honours the young king seems to have rendered to his ancestors. We know that, among those to whom he erected shrines in his newly-founded sacred City, Akhetaton, were the great warrior-like Pharaohs of his dynasty, Thotmose the Third and Amenhotep the Second, the builders of the Egyptian empire — staunch worshippers of the national gods, above all of Amon, to whom they consecrated the spoils of their conquests. No man could have been more alien than they to the gentle king who preached the doctrine of one nation, the earth, united in the love of one God, the Sun. And yet, they had their shrines, “each of which had its steward and its officials”1 in the City of the One God. Arthur Weigall tells us that it was Akhnaton’s desire to show, in this manner, “the continuity of his descent from the Pharaohs of the elder days and to demonstrate his real claim to that title of ‘Son of the Sun,’ which had been held by the sovereigns of Egypt ever since the Fifth Dynasty, and which was of such vital importance in the new religion.”2

But in the light of our comments on the true meaning of that title (which the Founder of the Aton faith would have claimed anyhow, because he had every right to claim it, even apart from his royal birth), it would seem that those temples to the memory of the dead Pharaohs were erected in quite a different spirit. An unbroken filiation to royal ancestors of a “solar line” two or more millenniums old could not add much weight to the claim to divinity of one who had experienced, through his nerves, the presence in him of the Soul of the Sun. While, on the other hand, if “all men” had gradually developed their possibilities only in order that he might finally appear, in the full-bloom of his individual Godhead — if they had all been “raised up” for him, as he says himself — then surely his own immediate forefathers were, in a still much more direct and effective manner, responsible for his coming. Whatever might have been the

1 Arthur Weigall: Life and Times of Akhnaton (New and Revised Edit. 1922), p. 171.
2 Arthur Weigall: Life and Times of Akhnaton (New and Revised Edit. 1922), pp. 171-172.


gap between them and him — between their world and his, between their gods and his — yet it remained a fact that they and not others had given him that body in the depth of which was rooted his true solar consciousness (not that of historical or legendary connections with any particular deity, but that of vital identity with the Radiant Energy of the One Sun — the One God). They deserved their shrines, not for justifying any dynastic claims of his, but simply for being the human progenitors that had given birth to him, the godlike Individual, the Sun in flesh and blood.

* * *

One more point, however, clearly referred to in the passage quoted a few pages above1 from the Longer Hymn, seems to need explanation, and that is the place given by Akhnaton himself to “the Royal Wife . . . Nefer-neferu-Aten Nefertiti” in the Religion of the Disk.

There can be no doubt that the person here mentioned is actually the Pharaoh’s consort, the beautiful young queen whose portrait-busts in the Berlin Museum are perhaps the most widely admired of all the masterpieces of Egyptian sculpture. Her titles — “great in majesty, Lady of the Two Lands, living and young for ever and ever” — only confirm her identity. And no explanation of any kind can be put forward to account for this allusion to her, save that the Founder of the Aton cult wished to say that which he said, i.e., that he believed the evolution of man to have culminated in himself (the only man he knew to be God-conscious) and in her. The question is therefore: on what grounds was she, in his eyes, entitled to such an exalted position in the hierarchy of creatures that “every man who standeth on his feet” since God “did lay the foundation of the earth,” had been “raised up” for her, no less than for him? In other words, of what significance was she in his Teaching, and in what light should she be looked upon by those who wish to be his followers?

1 p. 197.


From all available written and pictorial evidence it appears, as we have already seen,1 that Akhnaton and Nefertiti loved each other dearly. If the young king had taken no “secondary wives,” as had been the custom with his fathers, it was simply because, in this one queen of his and in the children her love had given him, “his heart was happy,” as he himself declares in so many inscriptions. The extraordinary importance he seems here to give his consort may be just a proof of how deeply he felt all that he owed to her. From what one knows of his earnest and sensitive nature, one may infer that he understood better than any other man the supreme value both of tenderness and of pleasure. It is difficult — and it would be perhaps indiscreet — to attempt to say more. Akhnaton is one of those rare characters so admirably balanced and beautiful that they should be felt rather than discussed. And average imagination, which dissociates the spiritual from the physical and the emotional planes instead of comprehending them in their organic continuity, will probably always remain unable to conceive what that sacred intimacy with his queen (faintly reflected in a few attitudes upon the bas-reliefs of the time) actually meant to him, whose body and soul were in tune with each other and with the silent music of Life. The young Pharaoh knew how profoundly the woman who loved him and whom he loved was one with him. And just as he had ordered her features to be represented upon the monuments along with his, and on the same scale, so did he bring in her name and titles, along with his, in the bold statement that he was the Man for whom “all men” had been “raised up” from the beginning of the world. He could not conceive of himself apart from her. We may think that he would have been anyhow the perfect individual whom he was. But he probably believed that, without her, something vital would have been missing in his life. He had needed the warmth of love she had given him, and all the knowledge he and she had acquired together, in their love, to become complete. And therefore, in none of his highest claims did he consider himself alone. He was “he and she.” In him, the perfect

1 In Chapter IV, pp. 98-100.


Individual reflected and expressed the godlike Couple, for ever one, in divine union on all planes.

This is one interpretation of the meaning of the place given to Nefertiti in the above quotation. There is another. The “Lady of the Two Lands” may perhaps be considered here not only as the Wife, inseparable from Akhnaton himself — “one flesh” with the conscious flesh of the Sun — but also as his best disciple, the model and prototype of all those who wish to follow him. And “all men,” it may be suggested were “raised up” for her in the sense that her approach to eternal truth, through the simplicity of a loving heart, corresponded to an essential stage which they all had to reach before being able to experience within themselves the immanent Soul of the Sun.

Very little, it is true, is known of the extent to which she “understood” her lord’s religion. When the king instituted Merira as high-priest of the Disk, he is supposed to have addressed him as his “servant who hearkeneth to the Teaching” and with “all the works of whom” he was satisfied. At least, those are the sentences put into his mouth in the inscription on the walls of Merira’s tomb. Other courtiers similarly claim to have understood the Pharaoh’s “Teaching of Life”; to “hearken to his words,” etc. We shall never know how far such statements, even when attributed to the king himself, expressed his actual opinion of his nobles or were merely boasts on the part of officials competing with one another in loyal zeal. But from the little history tells us and permits us to guess about what happened in Egypt only a few years after Akhnaton’s death, one can safely say that most of the Pharaoh’s followers (including the high-priest Merira) were not the fervent disciples that they had consistently pretended to be during his lifetime. On the other hand, without the protestations of faith in him and in his Teaching which one reads on the walls of their tombs; without, indeed, any outward claim, it is possible, even probable, that Nefertiti had imbibed more of the spirit of the Religion of the Disk than any of them. That she was the “Royal Wife,” his beloved, was perhaps a reason, but could surely not have been a sufficient reason for the young king


to have her standing at his side and officiating with him in most if not all the ceremonies in honour of his God, had she not shown an earnest attachment to the new faith, and had she not grasped the essentials of it through the path of devotion if not also through that of knowledge. And the fact that, in spite of her being a woman, he committed to her charge the temple of the Setting Sun — the “House-of-putting-the-Aton-to-rest” — argues at the same time his utter disregard for custom and his recognition of the queen’s genuine zeal for his Teaching.

Not enough is known of Nefertiti for one to say if she was or not a disciple as “intellectual” as some others might have been — one who could have explained the Teaching rationally, or even written philosophical comments upon it. But she certainly was one who accepted it wholeheartedly and put it at the centre of her life, both because she deeply felt its beauty and because she deeply loved its inspired Promoter. Devotion had doubtless led her to the very gates of knowledge, if not to knowledge itself.

And, in stating that from the beginning of the world “all men” had been “raised up” for himself and for her, Akhnaton has perhaps simply wished to stress how far advanced in the human evolution is the real Disciple — the devotee who gets a glimpse of ultimate truth through his (or her) absolute love for a God-conscious being and for the Sun, God’s visible Face, if not for the divine impersonal Energy that resplends, though in a different manner, in both of these. Of those who had attained the higher stage of complete consciousness of their identity with the Essence of the Sun, he knew none but himself. He has said so: “Thou art in my heart and there is none who knoweth Thee save Thy Son, Nefer-kheperu-ra Ua-en-ra. . . .” But he knew at least one whose sincerity and wholeheartedness contrasted with the lip-homages of most of his followers, the superficiality or actual indifference of many of which he was probably beginning to become aware; one who, through intense devotion, had transcended herself and was, even without having his direct knowledge of the supreme “Heat-and-light-within-the-Disk,” nearer to him and nearer to It than any other. And that one was his con-


sort — the same individual whose love had perhaps played its part in the awakening of his own deeper consciousness.

It is possible that by declaring “all men” to have been “raised up” for her as for himself, he was alluding to her devotion as typical of a true disciple’s; of one, that is to say, who is on the way to attain the goal of man that he had attained. It is also possible that he simply meant that she was inseparable from himself, the God-conscious Man. But we believe that, still more probably, the two interpretations can be put forth at the same time as complementary. The former may, in a way, be the consequence of the latter in the particular case of Queen Nefertiti who was first Akhnaton’s consort and then only his devout disciple. The latter, in turn, is not independent of the former, in the sense that the beautiful “Lady of the Two Lands” was perhaps such a perfect wife precisely because she was her lord’s disciple and collaborator — one with him on all planes, as we have said. And that oneness on all planes with a God-conscious Teacher is perhaps the highest stage which can be reached by all those to whom is not given, here and now, the direct experience of Godhead within life. The world is therefore “raised up” for the few who reach it, as well as for the fewer still who, like Akhnaton, go further beyond.

* * *

We can now try to sum up the essential features of the Teaching which we have termed the “Religion of the Disk,” and which Akhnaton regarded as the universal religion, and preached as such.

Based upon its Founder’s intuition — we should say, it seems, on his direct awareness — of the equivalence of all forms of Energy, of the identity of Energy and of what appears to the senses as matter, and of his own substantial oneness with that same Energy that is at the root of all existence, it represents, philosophically, as we have stated, a variety of pantheistic monism hardly different (if different at all) from that of the Indian seers who, some centuries later, wrote the Upanishads. It stands apart from other


purely speculative systems, inasmuch as it was a cult as well as a philosophy. In it, the immanent Soul of the Sun (and of the Cosmos), “Heat-and-Light which is in the Disk” — Radiant Energy — was the object of a stately public worship comprising music and dancing1 and the singing of hymns, along with the ritual offering of food, drink, flowers, and incense. The only visible form, however, which the worshipper was allowed to consider, apart from the resplendent Face of our Parent star in heaven, was the image of the Sun-disk with rays ending in hands, symbolising the power radiating from the Sun down to the earth on which we live.

Akhnaton himself occupied a prominent place in the religion2 as the “Son of the Sun” or “Son of God,” that word designating not a man miraculously conceived (the young king never put forth that irrational claim), but the Man who, while conceived and born like all creatures, had exhausted the highest possibilities of human nature by becoming directly conscious of the presence of the Soul, or Essence of the Sun — immanent Cosmic Energy — within his nerves.

Queen Nefertiti, both as the Wife who was a part of himself and as the true Disciple who had wholeheartedly accepted him and his Teaching, through love, was second only to him. And it is probable that, had the Religion of the Disk survived, it would have centred round these two figures — especially round its Founder, looked upon (and rightly, too, in the sense which we have made clear) as divine. Along with the intellectual worship of universal Energy, it would have become the devotional cult of the Perfect Individual — the only one to deserve, by his own right, the name of “Son of the Sun.” And any imaginable attempt to revive it would, it seems, if successful, result in the same; so inseparable is the Teacher from his Teaching.

The philosophical conclusions which can be drawn from

1 Sir Wallis Budge: Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 92.
2 “Taken together they (the tombs of El Amarna) only reveal one personality, one family, one home, one career, and one mode of worship. This is the figure, family, palace and occupations of the king, and the worship of the Sun — which also was his. . . .” — Norman de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, pp. 18-19.


the hymns (and from minor sources1) — the equivalence of heat, light, sound, electricity and all manifestations of energy, and the substantial identity of energy and matter — have been, as we have said, confirmed by the general tendency of modern science to resolve matter into atoms, atoms into centres of power, and qualitatively different kinds of power into outward expressions of quantitative differences (in length of wave, etc.). They can therefore to-day be called positive knowledge, though they were, originally, the result of one man’s apparently unaccountable intuition. It is to them that Sir Flinders Petrie refers when he calls the Religion of the Disk a religion which could have been “invented to satisfy our modern scientific conceptions.”2

The idea of his own oneness with the supreme immanent Reality — solar Energy, i.e., Cosmic Energy — was the result of Akhnaton’s inner experience — an experience as compelling and, to the person who lived it, by no means more “irrational” than any sensuous apprehension of facts, and shared by all those whom we call “realised” or “God-conscious” souls.

That other all-important idea of the unity of all life and brotherhood of all living creatures is based, at the same time, upon the general substantial pantheism of the Religion of the Disk; upon the fatherhood of our parent star, nourisher of all beings — a fact; and upon the response of even the meanest of living things to His beneficent heat and light — another fact.

Akhnaton’s Teaching can therefore in no way be compared to any of those faiths based upon the supernatural revelation of a personal God through miraculous happenings. It is connected with no miracles, save the everyday miracle of birth and growth, and that miracle of perfect beauty: the life of its Founder. It is rational in the sense that its fundamentals express a human experience: that of universal oneness (an experience reserved, indeed, to a very few individuals, but of which the implications are confirmed

1 Such as the scarab found at Sadenga, in which Aton is called “great one of roarings (or thunders).” See Sir Wallis Budge: Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), pp. 104-105.
2 Sir Flinders Petrie: History of Egypt (Edit. 1899), Vol. II, p. 214.


by science), and facts of this earth, such as the happy reaction of all creatures to the warmth of sunshine. But it draws its inspiration from the beauty of the Sun and of the natural world, and from the joy of life, more than from any precise theory of the universe, however objective, however “scientific.”

At least to the extent to which we know of it, it puts forth no definite views about death and the destiny of the dead. Though a prayer, inscribed upon Akhnaton’s coffin, suggests that he personally believed in the survival of consciousness in a much subtler state of corporeality, it seems as if, in his Teaching, the “problem of death” as well as the problem of suffering were deliberately left aside as insolvable when considered at our general human scale, and automatically solved for those who, here and now, live “in truth.”

Ethically, the religion was of the highest standard, implying absolute sincerity in thought, speech and action — sincerity towards one’s self as well as towards others; above all, towards one’s deeper nature — and love, not for man alone, but for all living creatures considered as our brothers. This fact of its being by no means man-centred but “life-centred” places it, in our eyes, far above the later monotheisms that a few modern authors — one serious archaeologist at least, Arthur Weigall; and one famous psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud himself — have endeavoured to put in parallel with it,1 or to point out as positively derived from it.2 The god who has a “chosen people” and the god who is the father of all men but not, it would seem, of the rest of creatures which he gave man the right to exploit, are equally alien to the all-pervading “Heat-and-Light within the Disk” — immanent Energy manifested through the Sun. And both are but puerile and barbaric tribal gods, compared with that truly universal Father-and-Mother of all life, Whom the young Pharaoh adored.

To be truthful to the bitter end, with courage — with heroism if necessary — and to love all creatures and be kind

1 Arthur Weigall (Life and Times of Akhnaton, New and Revised Edit. 1922, pp. 101, 127) stresses the resemblance of the Teaching to Christianity.
2 S. Freud (Moses and Monotheism) sees in Moses an Egyptian, follower of Akhnaton, whose Teaching he tried to give to the Jews.


to them (not only do them no harm, but to do them positive good; to all of them impartially, as our Father, the Sun) is therefore the sacred duty of anyone who looks upon Akhnaton as his Master.

A very definite line of conduct in everyday life, and no less definite reactions to all forms of hypocrisy, cowardice and cruelty; the condemnation of the revolting exploitation of animals and men — especially of that of the more helpless animals — which has kept on dishonouring mankind from before the dawn of history, is logically implied in the admission that we are all brothers in the Sun; co-worshippers, at different levels of consciousness, of the One same Principle of all Life. Equally implied in it is the respect, as far as possible, of trees and plants which are, also, in their own way, happy to thrive in the sunlight — a whole practical philosophy in which the God-conscious Individual in tune with life as a whole (and not man as a chosen species exploiting at will the rest of the living) is the centre, the purpose, the culmination of creation on earth. And this remains true, whether those who once called themselves Akhnaton’s disciples lived up to their faith with all its consequences or whether they did not.

Yet, it is correct to say that the Religion of the Disk seems to have comprised no explicit commandments and prohibitions. It logically implied certain actions; it excluded certain others. It ordered nothing; it forbade nothing. It was not a device to keep the average man out of mischief, but a “Teaching of life” addressed to those few whom their rational mind, their straightforward nature, and above all their sensitiveness to the beauty of the living sunny world predisposed to receive it and who, having imbibed its spirit, would naturally live up to its practical implications. It was — it is — as we have said, in one sense the only religion for all living creatures, and in another, a religion only for the elite of men.

Sir Wallis Budge tells us that “the Atenites adored and enjoyed the heat and light which their god poured upon them, and . . . sang and danced and praised his beneficence, and lived wholly in the present. And they worshipped the triad


of life, beauty and colour. . . .”1 This is true in a sense, but there is more to say. That joy of life, here alluded to — and which is at the root of the Aton worship — was not, as Sir Wallis Budge seems to suppose, a superficial and sterile gaiety. It was a deep and elevating experience, an inspiration which led the worshipper as near the God-conscious King, true Son of the Sun — i.e., as near the perfected End of human growth — as the limitations of his individual nature permitted him to reach.

We have just now spoken of the practical implications of the Teaching in the disciple’s daily life. What we have yet to see of Akhnaton’s unusual career illustrates the application of its principles by its very Promoter to a problem of all times: the problem of war; in particular, of war in connection with one’s colonies.

1 Sir Wallis Budge: Tutankhamen, Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism (Edit. 1923), p. 96.