Evoking Demons

[Xenophon]

Savedow opines that the demons from the Lesser Key "will kill you if they can." Lon Milo Duquette allows they can be formidable, but his own anecdotes suggest a rather casual approach compared to tradition. Sites like "Joy of Satan" seem to dispense with banishing rituals altogether and are pretty vague where circles are concerned. Any thoughts which is right? Personally, I reckon it's like reloading cartridges: err on the side of caution, even if it's costly on effort. My sole evocations to date have been with entities other than those that figure in books like the Lesser Key. Results have been indifferent on some issues and I'm thinking I might need to give the 72 a go. (And, no. My approach is not as cavalier as that last phrase suggests.)

 

[Roma]

I walked past a fringe church gathering and noticed that each of the adult males had a dark entity sitting on the head - managing the thoughts.

I don't think they invoked demons, but they came anyway

 

[stalkinghyena]

Yes, "they said"... But it is really a matter of individual experiment, with a mind to the application of the Second Power of the Sphinx, viz. "Audere".
As you have noted, different people have different perspectives, and then they publish them, and it becomes a rule and reference for seekers. Of course the one who seeks to command and the one who supplicates will have divergent recipes. And there are hierarchical opinions and reflective judgements, etc.

Given references to "authority", it is my opinion that any actions you undertake, the spirits will not be interested in them, they will be interested in you. What you do. The language you develop together. If they do not like you, then perhaps they may kill you, or toy with you, or ignore you (until you aren't looking, they have long memories). But even if they do like you, then they will test you. Background paradigm will usually provide the definitions of the mechanics in play so long as one is open to animated frames of reference.

If you are familiar with Grant, then perhaps you have come across his use of the term "metathesis"? I don't think any standard definition applies to how he uses it, but I like to think, after witnessing his hypnotic cabalistic tap dances, he means "going down the rabbit hole".

I don't think they invoked demons, but they came anyway

What fun! Jolly good for them!

 

[Roma]

What fun! Jolly good for them!

The women and children that I could see all had parasites sitting on the front of their hearts, extracting life force

Perhaps that was a blessing in disguise

 

[Yazata]

"will kill you if they can."

Doubt it. I think you're right in erring on the side of caution though. Maybe it's a chicken or the egg situation but most of the people I've seen talk / write / do videos from a demonolatry perspective (i.e. without even a LBRP because it might "offend" the demons) seem a bit messed up in the head.

 

[Xenophon]

Doubt it. I think you're right in erring on the side of caution though. Maybe it's a chicken or the egg situation but most of the people I've seen talk / write / do videos from a demonolatry perspective (i.e. without even a LBRP because it might "offend" the demons) seem a bit messed up in the head.

That might well be true. Some cases of demonic madness might well be a "pre-existing condition" coming to a head and bursting. Most authorities recommend a lot of psychological spadework before chalking those pentagrams and vibrating those conjurings. The average human isn't too very patient. The emotionally unstable even less so than most.

Post automatically merged: Aug 23, 2023

Yes, "they said"... But it is really a matter of individual experiment, with a mind to the application of the Second Power of the Sphinx, viz. "Audere".
As you have noted, different people have different perspectives, and then they publish them, and it becomes a rule and reference for seekers. Of course the one who seeks to command and the one who supplicates will have divergent recipes. And there are hierarchical opinions and reflective judgements, etc.

Given references to "authority", it is my opinion that any actions you undertake, the spirits will not be interested in them, they will be interested in you. What you do. The language you develop together. If they do not like you, then perhaps they may kill you, or toy with you, or ignore you (until you aren't looking, they have long memories). But even if they do like you, then they will test you. Background paradigm will usually provide the definitions of the mechanics in play so long as one is open to animated frames of reference.

If you are familiar with Grant, then perhaps you have come across his use of the term "metathesis"? I don't think any standard definition applies to how he uses it, but I like to think, after witnessing his hypnotic cabalistic tap dances, he means "going down the rabbit hole".


What fun! Jolly good for them!

Love that phrase in above. "Hypnotic cabalistic tap dance." It's a pity some of Crowley's linguistic aplomb never rubbed off on his apprentice Grant. At the latter's best, he CAN be very, very good. His usual style, though, is something on the order of Austin Spare.

 

[Roma]

Humans that cannot control their emotions, let alone their thoughts, may be easy prey for astral entities

Such humans, being unable to control their thoughts, are difficult to assist

 

[stalkinghyena]

It's a pity some of Crowley's linguistic aplomb never rubbed off on his apprentice Grant

I think KG is in his own class (despite is relations with Crowley and Spare), but what I find intriguing is that in his task of syncretizing everything to the 93 current (viz, his "Typhonian" formulae, all other downstream currents being subset modifications) he kind of reminds me in spirit of some of the earlier Jewish Kabbalists in terms of style of thinking. That is, the "metathesis", which I kind of understand, he finds ways of making "everything = everything". This I compare (though do not identify) with Charles Fort, though he operated in terms of satire and irony in his critiques of Dogmatic Science and Positivism.

But in relation to evocations, KG's methods of reasoning I think can have practical value if one applies his mode(s) of thinking to the symbolic language and interactions of spirits in general. Though it can take a lot of stretching. Not a lot of people are comfortable with that because they want the 1:1 ratio of request/answer - as if "incorporeal" entities could speak in such terms, or that the would prefer to.

I identify with KG especially, when reflecting on his own texts, he points out that the reader is obliged to their own interpretation as it presents itself - not he even knows what he is really saying, and on one must be wary of what is not being said. My hope is that one day I can systematize his lines of thought, especially his gematria, for myself if not for some future tutorial. There are a lot of gems that can could provide useful for distillation, so long as one is aware that is not meant for 1:1 instruction, but as a primer for "non-rational" experience.

And then there is Michael Bertreaux....

 

[Xenophon]

Yeah, his tendency to heap all together struck me as parallel with ol' Lanz von Lebenfels (Theozoology: the Science of the Sodomite Ape Men.) In the latter a cross carved on a rock in the Australian outback counted as proof that rune-wielding Aryans had penetrated the continent. At his worst, Grant crosses that line, albeit in a different direction and toting other baggage. But THEN he floors you with his genuis-level insights. Which is why I stuck with reading him.

Bertreaux? I have only read Grant's discussions of him. Some of the man's paintings are highly evocative of meditations. Crude by artistic standards; highly charged for provoking an occult response. His teachings, as noted, I've only read in Grant's synopsis.