The Egyptian Book of the dead by P. Le Page Renouf and Edouard Naville

but I do not see how it can be grammatically understood otherwise. It is understood from the passage from Light to Darkness and the converse. ‘In his lot,’ literally ‘in him.’ ‘End his being’: more strictly, ‘bring to an end his activity’; ⁂⁂⁂. ‘_Being_’ (though inevitable in a modern language) is much too abstract a word for these ancient texts. ⁂ implies ‘motion, activity,’ and ⁂ is not a simple negation, but implies ‘completion, end’ (τελέω, τέλος), though not ‘cessation.’ Our _modern_ acceptation of the word ‘perfect’ is often wrongly applied to ⁂. We should think rather of such phrases as ‘annum perficere,’ ‘sole perfecto.’ ------------------------------------