Re: [Solomonic] Re: Origins of the Triangle in Binding
- On 1 October 2012 02:52, solsticewooddragon <tmichelle57@...> wrote:
> What do you make of the argument that "Saitan" appearing in a goetic texts implies some Middle Eastern influence (duh, that sounds dumb even as I type it.) But basically since in Islamic theology angels can't be "fallen," but the djinn can and do fall, and so are the ones who led the rebellion against God (I think-- someone who knows more on this can correct me). In this framework, Saitan/Shaytan stands has THE devil or a sort of Grand Demon whose main function is to whisper into the hearts of humans and djinn to get them to "sin."like yourself perhaps I'm in search of an informed opinion as to
> (So I suppose then Lucifer becomes a djinn and Saitan the whisperer?)
> I'm repeating the explanation as it was made to me while discussing possibilities concerning why Oberion in that "Book of Magic" looks like a djinn. (It seems Satan must be bound before Oberion is conjured.) It sounds possible--bind the whisperer so the djinn does the will of the operator-- except I'm simply not aware of anything like a Goetia within medieval Islamic theology nor do I have the slightest idea of who would or how that might cross over from the Moslem to the Christian world (I'm sure it could, just no idea of where to look) or if the idea itself is ridiculous.
> Any thoughts on that one?
In my case specifically, someone competent to verify whether Ninevah
Shadrach a) has access to ground breaking new sources even though not
backed by a University, or b) wrote a new necronomicon. (there I go
making new friends again!)
In the Book of Magic though, its too big a text to guess about and
I've only seen select pages, but I'd imagine Satan there isn't Islamic
(Faustian? or perhaps anti-Paracelsian?).
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jake Stratton-Kent <jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:
>The two studies can compliment each other. First, explore what was it like without Satan. Then, figure out how he later fits into that structure. What role does he actually play?
> > My point was more about where he does appear and how he seems to fit into the grimoire cosmology - which constantly runs the ragged edge between mainstream (at the time) Christiain cosmology and the older cosmology we find in goety.
> agreed. I'm less concerned with how he got into the mix, more
> concerned with what it was/is like without him. Leads to similar
> conclusions though.
Actually, him and his minions. For example (and I think I've mentioned this before), take Ammaymon. My research seems to suggest that Ammaymon and Mammon might be the same beastie. And Mammon traditionally represents human greed and capitalist commerce - the human tendancy to hoard and consume resources for their own benefit at the expense of others and/or until the resource is destroyed. Yet, many grimoires would have us work directly with Ammaymon/Mammon in relation to spirit work.
So... what exactly does that mean? How are the grimoires expecting us to approach Ammaymon and what he represents? I am suspecting it is akin to the shaman who works with spirits of sickness, disease and hardship - intending not to glorify them so much as overcome and command them for the benefit of himself and his community. By commanding these types of spirits, the shaman is not subject to them and what they otherwise bring with them.
> > Ummm... Set? I think you and I might be talking past each other here.No worries. I figured it was something like that. :)
> aye, jumped to a conclusion there, apologies.
> Gnostics equating Seth and Set was once seriously proposed by academic
> interpreters, but no longer. Still influential on some occult writers
> though, hence a bit of a bug bear of mine ;D
> ooooh, you took the discussion onwards there. ;DYep, and I'd like to hear you talk about this origin more. What were their pre-Christian roles? What do you mean by three levels? And how exactly do you view the (pre-Christian) relationship between conjurors and chthonic and infernal spirits.
> The Four Kings (with one to three levels involved, so actually up to
> 16!) are decidedly 'alternative' in origin and owe a good deal to
> pre-Christian Theurgy and its precursors.
> Abramelin's 'orthodox' take on the Kings & Chiefs is interesting; forAs an Abramelin devotee myself, I'm most intersted in how one led to the other and how one should best approach the Abramelin hierarchy. I talk about this a bit in my essay in Diabolical II, "The Spirit-Magick of Abramelin." But I had to leave several concepts unexplored at the time, as I was (and still am in many respects) working through the issues myself.
> instance it brings in Belial, who appears to be treated similarly in
> the GoS. For my money the Hyg' Chiefs plus the Four Kings and some
> friends is pretty definitive and paradigm setting; and a better
> baseline than Abramelin's demonology.
> >> only Abramelin 1) blatantly adjusts the older pattern of the Hyg' (theYes, this I get. Aidoneus/Hades has an obvious relationship with Bael in this sense, as both are rulers of their underworld hierarchies. And there are certainly *plenty* of examples of this crossover. What I want to explore is the mindset (or philosophy) that goes along with this. When the Christian grimoire mage was approaching Bael, how did he view Bael as opposed to (or in similarity with) the way the Greek goes was approaching Aidoneus/Hades?
> >> author is demonstrably familiar with Byzantine texts, as shown by refs
> >> to Sybils in magic there)
> > Yes - and it is this adjustment I'm wanting to explore. It is one thing (for example) for a Greek magician to work with Hades - as Hades was not considered "eee-vul" to begin with. Yet, when we get to the later grimoires (and, honestly, even Orthodox Christianity), Hades has been replaced with Satan. (Again, note that Satan claimed ownership of Hade's scepter of rulership of the underworld.)
> Good example: note that Aidoneus (a name of Hades) is the first lord
> of the decans in one list, just as Bael is first king of the East in
> GoS (and 'Rex' or 'Kurios' in the ToS etc). This is a coherent
> pattern, and represents one level of 'kingship' (East and first decan)
> under different but related names. This king leads the decans, but is
> one of them - other levels of kingship are exterior to the series.
> Even 'pure' Jewish lore is tricky with strands to distinguish: thereI agree. Throughout midrashim, the "demons" are not infernal at all. Just another of God's creatures (created in the twilight of the Sixth Day of Creation, and lacking physical bodies) who are often at odds with humans. I think a lot of the Qliphothic stuff is post-Christianity.
> is an Asmoday who is a cheerful fellow who dislikes the impious,
> another who while more dangerous is still not damned, plus the out &
> out 'Qlipothic' version. All are equally Jewish, give or take some
> syncretism. The qlipoth though don't really equate with ideas from the
> C2nd & C4th - where the ToS and Hyg' come from - they're much more
> high medieval. So contemporaneity and compatibility of materials
> produces issues.
> our chiefs equate with directions &/or elements, but also with the[...]
> decans - as do their subordinates. This is originally pagan
> While the decans - like the Sun - go thru the underworld they are notYep, I'm with you so far.
> permanently imprisoned there, and among the Egyptians at least *were
> always gods*
> Later the part-time underworld guys get linked to out and out devilsYes! Exactly! And I find it hard to reconcile to this very day. I'm wondering how the authors of the grimoires accomplished it. They clearly didn't buy into the purely orthodox view, but they don't make it entirely clear what view they were following. They clearly believed in a Satan and his minions, but it is unclear on who or what they felt Satan and his buddies really were.
> of hell. This 'Satanic' and 'orthodox' quality is hard to reconcile
> with the 'autonomous' and 'undamned' qualities inherent in the
> original schema and still retained even under various veneers.
> Abramelin certainly shows signs of exactly this, evil demonsI think the divorce from astrology in Abramelin is a surface thing, really - and I suspect the relationship is intended but merely left unspoken. I find it quite easy to restore it in the case of the four Chiefs (Satan, Lucifer, Belial and Leviathan) and the four directional Kings (Oriens, Paymon, Ammaymon and Ariton). I'm not so sure on the middle four (Ashtoroth, Magoth, Beelzebub and Asmodeus).
> (de-linked not only from astrology but from the directions too
> incidentally) who require a one size fits all divine sanction to keep
> in order. It is fairly apparent that controlling evil spirits via the
> HGA is very different from commanding decan spirits via 'thwarting
> angels' (which has pagan counterparts based on hierarchy but also
> sympathy/antipathy on an individual basis).
As for the difference between Abramelin and the "thwarting angel" concept - are you refering to the fact that there is just one Celestial used to command all the spirits rather than each having their own thwarting angel?
> :D yeah, it would help if the big players in Jewish demonology would sit still.Heh - for sure.
> Stories keep getting re-written. Samael, Asmodeus, Beelzeboul and evenI even address this in my "Spirit Magick..." essay, but suggesting that Abramelin is treating these as different names for (essentially) the same being. Such that Satan/Lucifer/Leviathan/Belial is just one being in Abramelin.
> Ornias can and do appear in each others roles fairly often; with
> earlier and un-devilish versions competing with later and nastier
> forms as well as swapping around of names.
> > You bet it is. Hence my reference to, and attempts to explore, what I call "the Satan problem."To an extent. Just that you seem to be exploring the older models upon which the later hierarchies are clearly based. I'm all for that - but I want to know how the authors of those later grimoires reconciled the differences in their own heads. At least as far as we can piece together from what they left us.
> we're seeing the same problem, though perhaps via differing routes.