Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The Yezidis

Expand Messages
  • icybrethovhecate
    Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don t know what your talking about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is as proud as a peacock and he s a
    Message 1 of 9 , May 1, 2006
      Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
      about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
      as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
      feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
      which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
      Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
      aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
      Yezidism before you make claims. And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic,
      they believe that Lucifer(Melek Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value
      knowledge rather than faith as the means of salvation(remember, it is
      Lucifer who told Adam and Eve to eat from The Tree of Knowledge).
      Theyn also honor Jesus. And the Mandeans are included in my Gnostic
      Bible, so their Gnostic as well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I
      like the Yezidis even if I don't agree with all their beliefs.
      http://n.webring.com/hub?ring=luciferiangnosis,
      http://home.earthlink.net/~xristos/GoldenDawn/yezidi01.htm,
      http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/,
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Church_of_the_Peacock_Angel/,
      http://www.churchofsatan.org/peacock.html


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hey Mer248lina
      >
      > >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
      > line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
      > Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
      >
      > Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
      > would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
      > right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
      > as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
      > gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
      >
      > I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
      > these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of
      interest
      > here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
      > Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest
      here.
      > Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
      > conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
      > much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
      > Gnosticism.
      >
      > A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking
      Gnosticism"
      > by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised
      important
      > issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
      > technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the
      category,
      > such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
      > actually fit.
      >
      > The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
      > by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a
      friend.
      > She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
      > (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
      > study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
      > categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
      > not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
      > bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out
      to
      > not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
      > repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
      > not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
      >
      > I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the
      Mandaean
      > youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
      > closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
      >
      > Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
      > believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
      > something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
      > attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
      > as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this
      subject
      > generally don't.
      >
      > Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
      > would they be?
      >
      > PMCV
      >
    • Will
      Ah comon man, where have you been studying? JoS? the color blue? The Yezidi say Melek Taus (btw, Melek does not mean black, it means king) is the demiurge, but
      Message 2 of 9 , May 1, 2006
        Ah comon man, where have you been studying? JoS? the color blue? The
        Yezidi say Melek Taus (btw, Melek does not mean black, it means king)
        is the demiurge, but as for Lucifer...they only say that he is Azazel,
        or Shaitan. So yes, the surrounding evironment labels them devil
        worshippers, but Lucifer is a rather elusive term... not very easily
        used here. But Yezidi as Gnostic? That's pretty silly to me. If
        anything, neo-gnostic... but even then, it doesn't really fit. Even
        though they see Melek Taus as the Demiurge, that doesn't mean
        anything. Jews and Christians believe YHWH is the demiurge, but that
        doesn't make them Gnostic. It would help your case a little if this
        demiurge was keepin the man down, especially for something Sethian,
        but that isn't the case... and even then, it would totally wipe out
        your arguement.

        As for them holding faith over knowledge, that simply can't be true.
        Think about what faith is: Even though everyone around them is against
        them, they are still faithful to Melek Taus. All the religions have
        their knowledge, but it's different with their faith. For example,
        it's hard to go to war and fight, but people look up to someone who
        fights to protect their country(I mean, pre-Iraq deal), and it can
        keep you going. But what if as a man, you dress up as a woman and walk
        around town? Everyone automatically turns against you. How much
        strength would you have then? Everyone around the Yezidi antagonizes
        them. So as you can see, faith is an integral part of Yezidi culture.
        Even more so than their "knowledge".



        http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "icybrethovhecate"
        <icybrethovhecate@...> wrote:
        >
        > Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
        > about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
        > as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
        > feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
        > which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
        > Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
        > aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
        > Yezidism before you make claims. And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic,
        > they believe that Lucifer(Melek Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value
        > knowledge rather than faith as the means of salvation(remember, it is
        > Lucifer who told Adam and Eve to eat from The Tree of Knowledge).
        > Theyn also honor Jesus. And the Mandeans are included in my Gnostic
        > Bible, so their Gnostic as well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I
        > like the Yezidis even if I don't agree with all their beliefs.
        > http://n.webring.com/hub?ring=luciferiangnosis,
        > http://home.earthlink.net/~xristos/GoldenDawn/yezidi01.htm,
        > http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/,
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Church_of_the_Peacock_Angel/,
        > http://www.churchofsatan.org/peacock.html
        >
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hey Mer248lina
        > >
        > > >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
        > > line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
        > > Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
        > >
        > > Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
        > > would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
        > > right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
        > > as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
        > > gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
        > >
        > > I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
        > > these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of
        > interest
        > > here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
        > > Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest
        > here.
        > > Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
        > > conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
        > > much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
        > > Gnosticism.
        > >
        > > A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking
        > Gnosticism"
        > > by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised
        > important
        > > issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
        > > technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the
        > category,
        > > such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
        > > actually fit.
        > >
        > > The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
        > > by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a
        > friend.
        > > She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
        > > (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
        > > study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
        > > categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
        > > not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
        > > bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out
        > to
        > > not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
        > > repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
        > > not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
        > >
        > > I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the
        > Mandaean
        > > youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
        > > closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
        > >
        > > Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
        > > believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
        > > something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
        > > attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
        > > as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this
        > subject
        > > generally don't.
        > >
        > > Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
        > > would they be?
        > >
        > > PMCV
        > >
        >
      • pmcvflag
        Hey Icybrethovhecate ... about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is as proud as a peacock and he s a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
        Message 3 of 9 , May 1, 2006
          Hey Icybrethovhecate

          >>Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
          about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
          as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
          feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
          which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
          Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
          aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
          Yezidism before you make claims.<<<

          It isn't that I haven't read anything on Yezidis, it is just that
          you and I have been reading different sources. I have to side with
          Will on this one... the sources you site in order to demonstrate
          your point seem questionable to me. Melek Taus doesn't mean "Black
          Peacock", and I am not aware of any critical historian that would
          agree with the notion that the Yezidis have been around for 4000
          years. Another site you list is nothing more than a copy of Isya's
          hopelessly outdated book... again full of questionable information.

          I am not trying to be adversarial here, but I think we should be a
          bit more questioning of our sources... don't you? I think I would
          rather take my info from more academic sources in this case rather
          than sensationalist occult resources.

          As with the Mandaeans, much of the early direct academic info on the
          Yezidis comes from E. Drower. It is of note that she believes the
          term "seiten" (or shaytan, etc.) enters the Yezidi lingo initially
          as an attack, and the reason Yazidis are forbidden to state the name
          is partly because it sounded superficially like a name they already
          had and they did not want thier god cursed with the equation.

          "Indeed, it is possibly the Yazidis themselves, by tabooing all
          mention of the name Shaitan, or Satan, as a libel upon this angel,
          who have fostered the idea that the Peacock Angel is identical with
          the dark fallen angel whom men call the Tempter." (E.Drower "Peacock
          Angel")

          She reports posing the question to a qawwal, point blank, and being
          told that the equation was a mistake.

          If you look in Isya's "Black Book" (which we don't know to be real,
          for sure... but you gave us a link to), you will actually see that
          it directly states that the name Satan is avoided because
          it "resembles" the name of thier god.

          Now, of course it is up to you whether you believe any one resource
          here more than another, but I think that there is enough evidence
          contrary to the usual occult line to at least warrent some
          scepticism. If you don't like what I say, at least allow for the
          possibility that I may not be completely ignorant. Since you are now
          talking in a community that values some academic perspective, try to
          allow that academic perspective have a place in your side of the
          conversation as well. I question your RESOURCES, not YOU.... please
          have the same respect.

          >>>And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic, they believe that Lucifer(Melek
          Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value knowledge rather than faith as
          the means of salvation(remember, it is Lucifer who told Adam and Eve
          to eat from The Tree of Knowledge). Theyn also honor Jesus. And the
          Mandeans are included in my Gnostic Bible, so their Gnostic as
          well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I like the Yezidis even if
          I don't agree with all their beliefs.<<<

          The so called "Gnostic Bible" contains many texts that scholars
          don't consider to be Gnostic. Even one of the book's editors, Dr
          Meyer, would surely tell you in retrospect that some of the texts
          are not technically "Gnostic". In fact, Dr Meyer states more
          recently in his essay for the Gospel of Judas that the category
          of "gnostic" is defined by a direct relation to Sethian beliefs. In
          other words, one of the compilers of your "Gnostic Bible" has
          perhaps become even more strict than ME in using this term.... and
          obviously can not consider some of the texts in his own book to
          be "Gnostic".

          If you go around saying that just because it is in the compilation
          called "The Gnostic Bible" it must be "Gnostic", it is almost like
          the Christians who say "the Bible says it so it must be true". The
          Gnostics had NO "Bible".... so don't take the "Gnostic Bible" too
          seriously.

          BTW, "Lucifer" enters our language as a mistranslation in the Latin
          Vulgate concerning the king of Babylon in Psalms. I doubt whether
          the average Yezidi has even heard the term. The Bible doesn't say
          that "Lucifer" tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of
          knowledge (not that we care what the Bible says *lol*)

          PMCV
        • debbie wheeler
          pmcvflag wrote: Hey Mer248lina ... line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the Yezidis are technically
          Message 4 of 9 , May 2, 2006
            pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
            Hey Mer248lina

            >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
            line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
            Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<

            Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
            would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
            right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
            as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
            gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.

            I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
            these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of interest
            here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
            Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest here.
            Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
            conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
            much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
            Gnosticism.

            A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking Gnosticism"
            by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised important
            issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
            technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the category,
            such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
            actually fit.

            The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
            by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a friend.
            She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
            (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
            study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
            categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
            not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
            bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out to
            not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
            repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
            not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.

            I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the Mandaean
            youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
            closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.

            Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
            believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
            something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
            attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
            as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this subject
            generally don't.

            Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
            would they be?

            PMCV
             
            Thanks pm, now you've given me a load of work to do lol. Have to verify what you've said about Salvation, gnosis and mandeans.





            Mer248lina


            Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets.
          • Will
            ... http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg ---take a look This depiction of Melek Taus shows his tail feather eyes extending out in a solar symbol
            Message 5 of 9 , May 2, 2006
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, other guy <no_reply@...> wrote:

              >> >>...he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
              >> feathers is a symbol of the sun).

              http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg ---take a look

              This depiction of Melek Taus shows his tail feather eyes extending out
              in a solar symbol because of the number of eyes (twelve). The roots of
              the eyes of the feathers are seven in number, and denote the planets
              of the ancients, which are numbered from the supernal triad - the
              three feathers springing from the birds head. dividing the image in
              half, is the Moon, representing opposites, while He stands on the
              Earth symbol as a foot stool. The Sumerian symbol to the left, the
              star, represents a god. The rest of it says something like, "created
              in light and darkness" or something of that nature.

              >>His secret name is Shaitan(Satan) which the Yezidis are forbidden to
              speak.

              You're forgetting these are Iraqi Kurds. That word is probably not in
              their original vocabulary from "4,000 years ago, when they started
              this religion" as one of your sources says(*snicker*). It's probably a
              label that an outside culture gave their deity. Probably somewhere
              from a short distance west? Speaking of origins, Most scholars agree
              that the Yezidi are an evolution of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. Want
              sources? Go find them, there's plenty of material out there. Try not
              to use keywords like "Lord Lucifer" in the search though...just a tip.

              >> And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
              >> aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn).

              How is that evil? Those are just attributes of the Sun (the whole
              "fire as light and fire and burn").
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.