Connecting with Lucifer easily

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

My point, while I see yours, is why would Lucifer be in the presence of the other shem angels?
For each decan in a sign, there is an AM angel and demon and a PM angel and demon.
Plus, I agree, how would it be known that Luifer was Heylel? I sure as hell dont.
Never successfully conjured a shem.

Sorry @Lemongrass00 ... I just realized it wasnt addressed to me.

 

[JMPtD]

That outer circle picture idea really resonates well to be occult by uncommon physiological focus as well as the well contrasted illumination of intelligence manifesting in the destroyable focus and empty mind structure.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Connecting with Lucifer easily
SUBTOPIC: Multiple Focus Points (Physiological, Destroyable Focus, Empty Mind)
※→ JMPtD, et al,

IF you read and follow any of the topics covered in this Discussion Group (The Wizard Forum) THEN you probably do not have an "Empty Mind" in any fashion. So, I think you can "mentally" cancel that term; as undefined jargon.

That outer circle picture idea really resonates well to be occult by uncommon physiological focus as well as the well contrasted illumination of intelligence manifesting in the destroyable focus and empty mind structure.

(COMMENT)

◈ On the matter of "focus:" Sometimes, what focus means to YOU is best discussed from the reverse Point of View (POV). IF you cannot focus, THEN attention is diverted from the initial or intended mental query (or target thought). The theory emphasizes object-oriented mental attention activity, internalization, and continuous development of a given topic. Focus is not destroyed. Focus is either maintained, emphasized, or de-emphasized in favor of a new target. Do not confuse "focus" with "memory." All memories are a product of "focus" at one time or another. Memories (recollections of the past) can be overwritten, focus (a "now" function - attention on what is happening at present) is not something that is overwritten.

◈ On the matter of the "Physicological:" It is NOT a form of focus. It is about change or development. [Example: "the period of human development that starts with puberty (10–12 years of age) and ends with physiological maturity (approximately 19 years of age)"].


Most Respectfully,
R
-----------------------------------------------
APA Dictionary of Psychology / Gary R. VandenBos, editor-in-chief. -- Second Edition. Revised edition of APA Dictionary of Psychology 2007.
Copyright © 2015 by the American Psychological Association.

Post automatically merged: Jan 17, 2024

RE: Connecting with Lucifer easily
SUBTOPIC: Multiple Focus Points (Physiological, Destroyable Focus, Empty Mind)
※→ Diluculo Del Fuego, Lemongrass, et al,

My point, while I see yours, is why would Lucifer be in the presence of the other shem angels?
For each decan in a sign, there is an AM angel and demon and a PM angel and demon.
Plus, I agree, how would it be known that Luifer was Heylel? I sure as hell dont.
Never successfully conjured a shem.

Sorry @Lemongrass00 ... I just realized it wasnt addressed to me.

(COMMENT)

Lucifer [AKA: The Light-Bearer • The Morning Star (Venus) • Satan (The Personification of Evil), The Angel Heylel] is a form of energy or a force of nature. It is sometime considered to be a "Fallen (from grace) Angel,” or the “Prince of Demons.”

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Xenophon]

For me I've experienced enough of Lucifer's presence that, for me anyway it's clear who I'm interacting with. Now having said that I am aware not everyone agrees in the concept of Archangel Heylel being Lucifer. For me I'm satisfied it's true. Not telling others what to believe however. I do appreciate your question though, it is a well thought out one.

That's not an answer. How did you establish his bona fides to begin with?

Personally, I start at the other end: why should Lucifer make it easy for ME to see him? What's his payoff here?

 

[Roma]

Mostly the concept of Lucifer comes through religious beliefs and filters. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Connecting with Lucifer easily
SUBTOPIC: Bona Fides of the Supernatural
※→ Xenophon, et al,

There is no such thing as the "Bona Fides" of a "Supernatural Entity." Supernatural Qualities are human-developed and defined characteristics on a spiritual level beyond human understanding. In faith-based belief systems, so many different aspects of "the supernatural" are found in both real and non-real planes of existence. Even "existence" is entangled with revelation-based information in some undefinable concept.

That's not an answer. How did you establish his bona fides to begin with?

(COMMENT)

A supernatural entity cannot be explained in terms of characteristics requiring some physical form or substance in any given reality.

In many cases, these concepts are embedded in hypothetical notions such as perfection or infinity.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Xenophon]

RE: Connecting with Lucifer easily
SUBTOPIC: Bona Fides of the Supernatural
※→ Xenophon, et al,

There is no such thing as the "Bona Fides" of a "Supernatural Entity." Supernatural Qualities are human-developed and defined characteristics on a spiritual level beyond human understanding. In faith-based belief systems, so many different aspects of "the supernatural" are found in both real and non-real planes of existence. Even "existence" is entangled with revelation-based information in some undefinable concept.


(COMMENT)

A supernatural entity cannot be explained in terms of characteristics requiring some physical form or substance in any given reality.

In many cases, these concepts are embedded in hypothetical notions such as perfection or infinity.


Most Respectfully,
R

So...if I try to contact "Lucifer" and I get an intriguing response, I can call the source "Lucifer" and I'm home free? Sounds a lot like some dicey real estate deal. "'Title' is such an outmoded concept, don't you think...? Sign here, and here, and here..."

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Connecting with Lucifer easily
SUBTOPIC: Bona Fides of the Supernatural
※→ Xenophon, et al,

I tend to think that we agree. But based on our training, academic education, and our experiences might have a mental imagery of that particular power. That is why, if you are a believer, it is dangerous to summon or attempt to otherwise communicate with evil. It is our individual mental image of this "evil" (that portion of a stream of energy) that we are tapping into.

That is why → when we say "Lucifer" → there is no one single understanding as to what "Lucifer" actually means.

"'Title' is such an outmoded concept, don't you think...? Sign here, and here, and here..."

(COMMENT)

I think we can agree that the nature and characteristics of a supernatural and spiritual entity are beyond human comprehension for the believer.

The names and titles humans assign to any groups, sets of, or individual apparitions of power are irrelevant to such entities of power. The entities know themselves (that stream of intelligent energy) and know the limitations and the boundaries of human understanding (knowledge). They (as a metaphysical power) understand when they are being addressed (no matter what title, label, or nomenclature) in any attempt to recognize and communicate with these supernatural and spiritual entities. What you or I call them is of no consequence.

The name "Lucifer" is not (in reality) the name of any one particular apparition or metaphysical presentation. It is the name the believer assigns to that mental imagery of power. That is why the various deities, angels, guardians, and mystical apparitions are artistically depicted so differently. It is what the mind (consciousness) conjures up for the purpose of human understanding.

So, when any of us say the name "Lucifer" (or any equivalency) we all understand that it is (generally speaking) something of an evil and demonic content of power. But it is a power (or stream of energy) emanating from an incomprehensible source that has no true (single and universally accepted) definition.

The personification of such power is a means by which we understand.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[stalkinghyena]

Who the fuck says Lucifer is a Shem angel?

Cannot recall the shem name or thread, but it is here somewhere.

This sort of thing gets me twitchy, so I checked four sources - Godwin, Tyson's Agrippa chart, Whitcomb (wary of typos), Uri Raz and Kaplan - and could not find Lucifer among the Shem.
According to Godwin, the Hebrew name for Lucifer transliterates as Helel, (Heh, Yod, Lamed, Lamed = 75).
That's four letters, whereas Shem names are based on triplets derived from Exodus 14:19-21 written "boustrophedon" (as the ox plows, right to left, left to right, etc). The "El" and "Yah" denote merciful or severe aspects of God respectively, though I can't find that reference (maybe Skinner).
Looking among the Shem for H's, I find:

Haayah
Hahahel
Haqmiah
Hariel
Hayayel
Hariel
Haziel
Hechashiah
Herachiel
Hihayah

There are sometimes variant spellings where, in transliteration, "H" is given in place of Cheth, but not one of these even approximates Helel.

For each decan in a sign, there is an AM angel and demon and a PM angel and demon.

According to Dr. Rudd, the angels of the quinances counter their paired demons. You place the angelic seal on the back side of the demon sigil, over the heart. After reading Carolyn Graves' book on Egyptian daemonology, it occured to me that the AM and PM assignments may actually be a dim echo of the god Re's daily journey through divisions of the the day and the Duat (which is in the body of Nut, or Nuit) Interesting to link these, but I won't swear by them.

According to Kaplan, the triplets of the Shem arise from Chokmah but receive their forms through Binah. I recently read that according to Karlsson, that Lucifer before the Fall resided in Da'ath, which linked the Supernals directly to the lower Sephiroth in harmonious union. I don't recall the latter's reference, maybe the Cohen brothers (the medieval ones - will have to check Scholem, which I have not got to yet).

That is why, if you are a believer, it is dangerous to summon or attempt to otherwise communicate with evil. It is our individual mental image of this "evil" (that portion of a stream of energy) that we are tapping into.

One of the motives and formulas of ceremonial magic is precisely to summon this "evil" in order to dominate it (via the names of God and such) and put it to work. This could be framed as an elaborate act of sublimation, the primary danger being a neglectful attitude of presumption and an inflated ego which is gradually eroded by carelessness and taking such forces for granted.

It's also interesting to note that, according to Godwin, "Helel ben Shachar", from Isahiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from Heaven O Lucifer son of the Morning?" is a reference to the King of Babylon. So if you are trying to connect with Lucifer easily, you might be talking to Mesopotamian alien transplant agent. Strike that last comment, it was impulsive.

 

[Xenophon]

This sort of thing gets me twitchy, so I checked four sources - Godwin, Tyson's Agrippa chart, Whitcomb (wary of typos), Uri Raz and Kaplan - and could not find Lucifer among the Shem.
According to Godwin, the Hebrew name for Lucifer transliterates as Helel, (Heh, Yod, Lamed, Lamed = 75).
That's four letters, whereas Shem names are based on triplets derived from Exodus 14:19-21 written "boustrophedon" (as the ox plows, right to left, left to right, etc). The "El" and "Yah" denote merciful or severe aspects of God respectively, though I can't find that reference (maybe Skinner).
Looking among the Shem for H's, I find:

Haayah
Hahahel
Haqmiah
Hariel
Hayayel
Hariel
Haziel
Hechashiah
Herachiel
Hihayah

There are sometimes variant spellings where, in transliteration, "H" is given in place of Cheth, but not one of these even approximates Helel.


According to Dr. Rudd, the angels of the quinances counter their paired demons. You place the angelic seal on the back side of the demon sigil, over the heart. After reading Carolyn Graves' book on Egyptian daemonology, it occured to me that the AM and PM assignments may actually be a dim echo of the god Re's daily journey through divisions of the the day and the Duat (which is in the body of Nut, or Nuit) Interesting to link these, but I won't swear by them.

According to Kaplan, the triplets of the Shem arise from Chokmah but receive their forms through Binah. I recently read that according to Karlsson, that Lucifer before the Fall resided in Da'ath, which linked the Supernals directly to the lower Sephiroth in harmonious union. I don't recall the latter's reference, maybe the Cohen brothers (the medieval ones - will have to check Scholem, which I have not got to yet).


One of the motives and formulas of ceremonial magic is precisely to summon this "evil" in order to dominate it (via the names of God and such) and put it to work. This could be framed as an elaborate act of sublimation, the primary danger being a neglectful attitude of presumption and an inflated ego which is gradually eroded by carelessness and taking such forces for granted.

It's also interesting to note that, according to Godwin, "Helel ben Shachar", from Isahiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from Heaven O Lucifer son of the Morning?" is a reference to the King of Babylon. So if you are trying to connect with Lucifer easily, you might be talking to Mesopotamian alien transplant agent. Strike that last comment, it was impulsive.

Strike the last comment? It makes the whole post! Though the paragraph beginning "One of the motives..." is insightful, true, and worthy by all men to be received.

Post automatically merged: Jan 26, 2024

RE: Connecting with Lucifer easily
SUBTOPIC: Bona Fides of the Supernatural
※→ Xenophon, et al,

I tend to think that we agree. But based on our training, academic education, and our experiences might have a mental imagery of that particular power. That is why, if you are a believer, it is dangerous to summon or attempt to otherwise communicate with evil. It is our individual mental image of this "evil" (that portion of a stream of energy) that we are tapping into.

That is why → when we say "Lucifer" → there is no one single understanding as to what "Lucifer" actually means.


(COMMENT)

I think we can agree that the nature and characteristics of a supernatural and spiritual entity are beyond human comprehension for the believer.

The names and titles humans assign to any groups, sets of, or individual apparitions of power are irrelevant to such entities of power. The entities know themselves (that stream of intelligent energy) and know the limitations and the boundaries of human understanding (knowledge). They (as a metaphysical power) understand when they are being addressed (no matter what title, label, or nomenclature) in any attempt to recognize and communicate with these supernatural and spiritual entities. What you or I call them is of no consequence.

The name "Lucifer" is not (in reality) the name of any one particular apparition or metaphysical presentation. It is the name the believer assigns to that mental imagery of power. That is why the various deities, angels, guardians, and mystical apparitions are artistically depicted so differently. It is what the mind (consciousness) conjures up for the purpose of human understanding.

So, when any of us say the name "Lucifer" (or any equivalency) we all understand that it is (generally speaking) something of an evil and demonic content of power. But it is a power (or stream of energy) emanating from an incomprehensible source that has no true (single and universally accepted) definition.

The personification of such power is a means by which we understand.

Most Respectfully,
R

Got it and agree very much about names lacking ontological traction.