The Archangels

The Archangels (http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=4061)

Vergessenheit 06-22-2004 06:20 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Archangels

Just wondering, has anyone had any personal experiences with any of the four archangels called upon in the LBRP? Raphael, Gabriel, Michael, and Adriel? I'm curious as to how these beings behave.

DeviouZ 06-22-2004 06:52 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah... I'm curious also, personally it seems to me the Archangels are the weakest part of the LBRP for me... the visualisations I get are always so impersonal, and I've yet to develop it such that it has the same depth as the rest of the ritual.

I wonder also, if you don't mind me adding to the question, what EFFECTS during the ritual as well as behaviour does one get from the Angels when you do the LBRP?

caltobe 06-22-2004 09:02 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you tried sitting down infront of one of the archangels after completing the ritual and listen to what is said?

Frater Manjet 06-22-2004 09:23 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of my experiences with the Archangels and Kings of the quarters during the LBRP/SBRP have never been interactory. Only in the LIRP/SIRP etc.. have I had any sense of interaction and that was limited to sensation. Evokation of these however is a whole other story.

I have not spent as much time with the Archangels, which is a situation I am on my way to rectifying, but I can speak of the Kings.

Do not confuse the Kings of the watchtowers with the archangels even though they share many traits. Primarily in association with their elements, but there are others.

It has only been by means of evokation...and yes even invokation that I have grown to understand them better. The mere declarations do little more for me than acknowledge their presence and sovreignty. ( cautionary note: speaking from experience invoking Kings without prior interaction and relationship is quite traumatic... I can only imagine this would hold true for the Archangels as well. )

Om A Piap (210/3)

Tzimtzum 06-23-2004 12:07 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A person's perceptions and perspectives of the archangels would be the most telling aspect of their natures. That, and many people have possibly been assigning them to the wrong sephiroth for years. According to Aryeh Kaplan and Benjamin Cooper, the most qualified Kabbalists in their field, the assignments are such:

Michael - Tiphereth
Raphael - Netzach
Uriel - Hod
Gabriel - Yesod

Meaning, that Michael and Raphael have been switched in most classical occult works. The implications of this are rather daunting, in that the LBRP is quite possibly "wrong" (along with many other rites). See, the LBRP is performed as if the magician were standing on the path between Yesod and Tiphereth, where the path between Hod and Netzach intersects it, facing Tiphereth. A few years ago I switched Michael and Raphael in the LBRP and the result was remarkable, the rite became more powerful. Give it a try, what have you got to lose? ;)

As for how these beings behave, look at the qualities of the sephiroth related to the archangel in particular.

Tiphereth: Beauty, balance
Netzach: Victory, emotion
Hod: Glory, intellect
Yesod: Sensuality, creativity

So...

Michael: A warrior of beauty and grace, power from a great intellect and perfect pysical build. Picture a warrior prince with a muscular body, golden hair, and a great golden sword slung across his back, dressed in golden armor with red and blue trim. He's strikingly handsome, with a relaxed yet confident posture. It takes a while to get to know Michael, he's wary of people at first and doesn't get along well with those who work a great deal with goetic beings, from my observation.

Raphael: A jovial warrior in green armor trimmed in blue, purple, and gold. Emanates healing energies and health. Imagine a medieval ranger archetype. Easy enough to get along with, a "friendly" being who's easy to read and usually willing to help regarding matters in his sphere.

Uriel: Picture a scholar, slender, with orange hair and orange robes trimmed with red, purple, and gold. Handsome, but serious. He can be difficult to approach, especially if you do so in an emotional way. The one most likely to wonder, "what's in this for me".

Gabriel: Can be envisioned male or female according to preference and situation. Blonde hair with purple robes (trimmed in orange, gold, green, and brown), very handsome (or beautiful), a grin with a twinkle of mishchief in the eyes. Friendly and amiable... and from what I've found, the most talkative of them all.

I've gotten to know them, and all are good friends. Michael and I especially have developed a strong bond, and he's an incredible ally to have in most instances. Though, all are easy to work with if you approach them with honesty and sincerity.

Ekron 06-23-2004 01:42 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tzimtzum interesting you mention switching Raphael and Michael re. LBRP. When I performed this ritual the other day which I don't do too often these days I automatically switched them without thinking, it just seemed natural to me.

Phnouthis 06-25-2004 09:39 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is completely absurd...As if Archangels just hop down to the periphery of one's circle upon call...It sounds like what most of you are doing is just deceiving yourselves into believing that your visualizations are actually objective beings; when (I say this in hope) you actually enter into systasis with an Archangel, the last thing you'll do is ask him to be your buddy. All the names and other tokens (including these little caricatures you frame) are meant to pique our memories--to take them too seriously is to degenerate into idolatry. An Archangel is more than just a visualization; but the attainment of this "more" requires a Faith perhaps impossible for most of us moderns.

Tzimtzum 06-25-2004 11:10 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And with all due respect, it sounds as if you're passing judgement without knowing another's heart and mind. If you have difficulties in relating to such things it's something you need to work with. I think you're being harsh without fully knowing the people involved.

As for beings such as the archangels, with time and pure intent they become more than the mechanism which draws them, soon they come because they know you. Then, in knowing you, they become a part of you (as they always have been). Isn't that what a friend is?

When a person "finds" their heart it becomes no less vital, they simply become mindful of the other qualities it has, aside from just the mechanical.

Radiant Star 06-26-2004 12:19 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Ekron and Tzimzum, I switched two of mine around for no reason, however, I came across a version of this arrangement within hours after doing the LBRP and mine seem to be in the right place now.

Also, I have not really spoken to the Archangels, but to someone else who told me what his specific role was for me and I have been relating to him more. He seems to be like a guide or guardian of my spiritual growth. I tried asking him a question not related to my growth and he was very firm and said I could ask those sorts of questions through my Tarot or somewhere else as my questions were not relevant to his role! I think I got told there dont you :? :wink:

Rays

Phnouthis 06-29-2004 08:03 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

De Classificatione Angelorum

What exactly do you understand by the word 'archangel'?

Ashnook 06-29-2004 10:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
This is completely absurd...As if Archangels just hop down to the periphery of one's circle upon call...It sounds like what most of you are doing is just deceiving yourselves into believing that your visualizations are actually objective beings;.


Im sure you have heard the term "As above so below". If you believe strong enough that the arch angels are there, then at least to some extent they are (at the least some of their essence is there).


I hate when new members make their first few posts in a "holier than thou" attitude......:???::roll:

Frater Manjet 06-29-2004 11:23 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
This is completely absurd...As if Archangels just hop down to the periphery of one's circle upon call...It sounds like what most of you are doing is just deceiving yourselves into believing that your visualizations are actually objective beings; when (I say this in hope) you actually enter into systasis with an Archangel, the last thing you'll do is ask him to be your buddy. All the names and other tokens (including these little caricatures you frame) are meant to pique our memories--to take them too seriously is to degenerate into idolatry. An Archangel is more than just a visualization; but the attainment of this "more" requires a Faith perhaps impossible for most of us moderns.

Did somebody leave that damn pulpit out in the lobby again?

Om A Piap (210/3)

Iamu 06-29-2004 12:52 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may be completely off base, seeing as I don't really know anything but the most basic information about the sephiroth, but I think this may be worth mentioning all the same. I'm sorry if I come off as totally out of my territory, but I figure being wrong is a good way to learn, and I wanna see this thread stay alive for a while.

I don't see how either of those sets of associations between the archangels and sephiroth really work. The first thing about them that really pops out at me, is that Tiphareth seems totally out of place. From descriptions of it's attributes and in placement in the tree, I've always interpretted Tiphareth as the focal point for everything; it resides in the center of all and directly links the higher and lower principles. "As above, so below"-- the universe at large and the self mirror each other, as do the "ideal" and actual situations, and recognition of this is a manifestation of Tiphareth. The archangels, however, seem to represent extremes relative to each other, no one residing in the center that Tiphareth implies to me. If Tiphareth enters into the equation at all, it seems to me that it would be in connection to the magician him/herself, linking his physical reality to "higher" spiritual principles through performing the ritual and by his very nature.

So if the magician is in Tiphareth, a couple of possible arrangements for the archangels become apparent, the most obvious to me being:

Raphael--Hesed (Love, grace)
Michael--Gevurah (Power, judgement)
Gabriel--Hod (Splendor)
Uriel--Netsah (Eternity)

On a side note, I was screwing around with the LBRP a while ago, and one of the arrangements I worked out for the archangels and elements was geographically based. Certain elements of it were lacking, but the angels felt very well-placed to me for whatever reason. Considering the alteration now, I realize the angels were placed in the right relation to each other to coincide with the sephiroth listed above.

Darkfay 06-29-2004 06:58 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok, Archangels, one of my fav topics!

I have only begun to successfully do the LBRP. All the Archangels i imagine are clothed in... roman looking clothes! They stand very tall, almost the height of the room.

Raphael- is in a white robe. Has a sword in hand, he sets it pointing to the ground as soon as he appears. Behind him, i imagine an army of foot-soldiers.

Gabriel- appears in an off-white robe, with very DISTINCT small orange prints! He has a large chalice in his hand. Sometimes he has an oriental looking face. Behind him is the open sea, and an army is ships, last time i did the LBRP, some of the ships had touched the shore.

Michael- Is dressed in a bright red robe, with a blue staff in hand. Behind him is a wall of fire, sometimes i see fire-balls or fire-creatures.
The LBRP i learnt from the Net mentioned visualising Sekhmet beside Michael. I tried it a few times, didnt seem to fit in. In a separate ritual, she mentioned she didnt want to work with me. So now its just Michael to my right.

Aurielle- i have most trouble visualising HER. She appears almost always at a far distance. Is in a robe of earth tones with a pumpkin in her hand. Sometimes she is a small child, sometimes a woman. It takes a longer time to visualise her. She appears with a background of a countryside in autumn. Sometimes i visualise giant creatures made of mud standing like an army behind her ( think i got that after seeing a pic of the Prague Golum!!)


Of course, these visualisations are ever changing. I will try to sit and speak to one of them, good idea, Caltobe.

Caradoc 06-29-2004 10:43 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamu
I don't see how either of those sets of associations between the archangels and sephiroth really work.


I had a great deal of trouble with this too. I was perfectly happy with the LBRP until I discovered you were meant to be standing at the Samekh/Peh crossroads facing Tiphareth. That really threw me as I couldn't fit the Archangels with the Sephiroth either. There's absolutely no problem with the elemental attributions for me but the Sephirothic didn't fit. I did some research.

First, the elemental attributions so I know where I am :-

EAST is the element of Air. Air is intellect and thought, etc. Raphael is Archangel of Mercury. Mercury is intellect and thought, etc. No problem there.

WEST is the element of Water. Water is always connected with the Moon. Gabriel is the Archangel of the Moon. Not so strong a connection perhaps, but no real problem.

SOUTH is the element of Fire. Michael is often pictured as a being of living flames or carrying the flaming solar lance or spear, etc. He is the Archangel of the Sun. No problem associating Michael with Fire.

NORTH is the element of Earth. Uriel as guardian of Eden and ruler of Winter is an easy connection to make with Earth. Traditionally he is associated with the Earth element anyway.

I've only put very simple information down there, nothing really in depth, so please add to, or correct, whatever you want to.

Now we come to the Sephirothic associations. I'm going to leave Tiphareth until the end as it's more tricky.

YESOD is the Sephira associated with Gabriel in the LBRP. Gabriel, as I said above, is the Archangel of the Moon. YESOD is the Sephira of the Moon. That one's pretty simple.

NETZACH is the Sephira associated with Michael in the LBRP. Michael is the Archangel who fights for God against the serpent and defeats it. When God needs a victory, He sends Michael. NETZACH means Victory of course so we can fit Michael in there without too much trouble.

HOD is the Sephira associated with Uriel in the LBRP. Uriel, who's name means Light of God, is a communicator between man and God, he is a messenger of God. Basically he fills many of the roles given to the God Mercury. Mercury is the planet of HOD. Uriel fits just fine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamu
The first thing about them that really pops out at me, is that Tiphareth seems totally out of place. From descriptions of it's attributes and in placement in the tree, I've always interpreted Tiphareth as the focal point for everything; it resides in the center of all and directly links the higher and lower principles.


This is the tricky one, it really took some digging to find the info on this one. In the Jewish tradition, Michael, who's name means either Like Unto God or Perfect of God, is associated with TIPHARETH. The name fits the Sephira but that's not necessarily important here. The important point is that the Archangels are set to rule over different parts of the Earth, and Michael rules over Israel. Michael is the special protector of Israel and is the direct intermediary between the Jews and God, so Michael is associated with Tiphareth in the Jewish tradition. The sources we have for the LBRP today are from European writers and the Archangel ruling Europe is Raphael. In the European tradition Raphael performs the service that Michael performs in the Jewish, so Raphael is associated with Tiphareth.

You may not agree with some of the associations and feel they are a bit tenuous or a bit of a stretch of the imagination, but as long as you understand that they make at least some kind of sense you can use them quite easily.

Now the methods of attributing the Archangels to element and Sephira are different and don't fit at the same time (except in the case of Gabriel) if you can see what I mean. This is a great advantage to me. The seperate ways I have to see the Archangels in order to hold the elemental and Sephirothic attributions in my mind helps me to harmonise different levels of understanding. On the one hand we have the elemental Archangels and on the other the sephirothic Archangels, yet they are the same.

What the calling of the Archangels does in the LBRP is allow us to harmonise the lower realm, in the form of the elemental attributions, with the higher realms, in the form of the Sephirotic attributions. Isn't this an important part of the ritual? In the Archangels themselves we have a conjuction of the lower with the higher, the pentagram with the hexagram. Where, for me, the Archangels played no really important role in the LBRP previous to my bringing in the Sephirothic attributions, they now complete the ritual and make a perfect symmetry in all aspects of the ritual. There's nothing extraneous for me anymore in the LBRP. :)

Radiant Star 06-29-2004 11:13 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
It sounds like what most of you are doing is just deceiving yourselves

says Phnouthis

I donít mind if I am deluded because my experiences have brought much understanding, personal growth, healing and enjoyment.

The point is, I am not hurting anyone by believing the things I do and it brings me a lot of happiness and if anyone is laughing at what we believe, then they are benefiting from it too with their laughter.

Canít see any problems with it at all, seems to bring a lot of happiness all round :grin:


Rays

PS: Brilliant post Caradoc as I am trying to understand the positions and roles of things in the ritual, the only confusion now is that my Archangels and Gods dont stay put, but it must be boring for them to stay in the same place all of the time.

* Thinks: hmm, I must try and remember that they are not human and stop giving them human attributes,


Nuhad418 06-29-2004 11:18 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
This is completely absurd...As if Archangels just hop down to the periphery of one's circle upon call...It sounds like what most of you are doing is just deceiving yourselves into believing that your visualizations are actually objective beings; when (I say this in hope) you actually enter into systasis with an Archangel, the last thing you'll do is ask him to be your buddy. All the names and other tokens (including these little caricatures you frame) are meant to pique our memories--to take them too seriously is to degenerate into idolatry. An Archangel is more than just a visualization; but the attainment of this "more" requires a Faith perhaps impossible for most of us moderns.


:cry: That hurt....that really...really hurt Phnouthis. Perhaps you would rather view them as living within the realm of metaphor? It works either way. Man...that was real harsh. :lol:


And thanks for the post Caradoc! You rock Brother.

Caradoc 06-29-2004 11:35 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm... I might have that as my signature like a movie poster blurb ~ "Brilliant post Caradoc" - Radiant Star :lol:

Thanks for the kind words NuHad and Radiant Star, I didn't think I expressed myself very clearly there but I can't have done too badly after all *head explodes with smugness* ;)

Tzimtzum 06-30-2004 12:02 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caradoc
This is the tricky one, it really took some digging to find the info on this one. In the Jewish tradition, Michael, who's name means either Like Unto God or Perfect of God, is associated with TIPHARETH. The name fits the Sephira but that's not necessarily important here. The important point is that the Archangels are set to rule over different parts of the Earth, and Michael rules over Israel. Michael is the special protector of Israel and is the direct intermediary between the Jews and God, so Michael is associated with Tiphareth in the Jewish tradition. The sources we have for the LBRP today are from European writers and the Archangel ruling Europe is Raphael. In the European tradition Raphael performs the service that Michael performs in the Jewish, so Raphael is associated with Tiphareth.



This is very true, from my experience, and something that I often forget. Considering how closely my own practices (and beliefs) are to the rabbinic tradition, it just comes naturally for me to view Michael as the Archangel of 5=6. Though, I can see how other traditons would adjust for that.

Phnouthis 07-02-2004 10:29 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is where I disagree (it seems our positions just may be reversed); Archangels are not simply metaphors constructed out of planetary, sefirotic, elemental, etc. symbolism, rather, they are real beings, existing independently from the realm of human personalities. Certainly one can call upon Archangels; and indeed, they may manifest if the state of the supplicant's psyche is sympathetic to their own in purity (unity), I just object that this mode of systasis is determined by getting the attributions right. Indeed their essences may be present, and more so than in ordinary consciousness, and yet, isn't the very essence of the One (as a manner of speaking) universally present? Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that recognizing such an immanentalism, or even calling upon the One in invocation, is hardly equivalent to an unio mystica.

The vast literature of Western mysticism contains many accounts of encounters with Archangels: I recommend Iamblichus' De mysteriis for a pagan theurgical perspective. (You will find no mention of cute orange togas!)

Tzimtzum 07-02-2004 11:16 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
That is where I disagree (it seems our positions just may be reversed); Archangels are not simply metaphors constructed out of planetary, sefirotic, elemental, etc. symbolism, rather, they are real beings, existing independently from the realm of human personalities. Certainly one can call upon Archangels; and indeed, they may manifest if the state of the supplicant's psyche is sympathetic to their own in purity (unity), I just object that this mode of systasis is determined by getting the attributions right. Indeed their essences may be present, and more so than in ordinary consciousness, and yet, isn't the very essence of the One (as a manner of speaking) universally present? Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that recognizing such an immanentalism, or even calling upon the One in invocation, is hardly equivalent to an unio mystica.

The vast literature of Western mysticism contains many accounts of encounters with Archangels: I recommend Iamblichus' De mysteriis for a pagan theurgical perspective. (You will find no mention of cute orange togas!)



Well, actually, I'm agreeing with you. The archangels are actual beings, independent of mankind's perceptions. The thing is, our perceptions shape the way we view them, and even alter their roles in our lives. I have no problem viewing the archangels as Egyptian gods, because I know at one time they filled those roles. Case in point, in my opinion, Gabriel has always been the archetype of the moon, fertility, and sensuality. His/her physical appearance and name have simply changed to match the culture and the individual's perception.

Funny story. As strange as it may sound, Michael once taught me a lesson about this, and it's how he sort of "broke the ice" with me. I invoked him one evening, in about my 7th year of study, to get some information and spend time with him. However, when he appeared he was dressed in furs and skins, wearing a bear mask, full body paint, and toting twin spears. At first he looked surprised, but then I realized that it was planned, because gave me a sly grin and said, "Dag tay, pardon my dress, but I was on my way back from a spirit dance and did not have time to change". :lol: Hearing "dag tay" (hello in Apache) mixed in with the Hebrew really cracked me up. After I stopped laughing, he changed into the style of dress I normally associate with him and we talked about it for some time. It all taught me something very valuable, they are the archetypes and truths of all cultures. Shaped by a culture's dreams and personality, while remaining at their core who they are.

Hail Michael, the great bear! ;)

Nuhad418 07-02-2004 08:09 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
That is where I disagree (it seems our positions just may be reversed); Archangels are not simply metaphors constructed out of planetary, sefirotic, elemental, etc. symbolism, rather, they are real beings, existing independently from the realm of human personalities.


Coming from a analytical psychological perspective (as I do) there is no such thing as "simply metaphors"...as I mentioned in the witchcraft forum, symbols and metaphors are not reducable or defineable. They exist in a processes that is at one independent to us, as we can expereince their numinous power but also dependent on our participation for meaning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
Certainly one can call upon Archangels; and indeed, they may manifest if the state of the supplicant's psyche is sympathetic to their own in purity (unity), I just object that this mode of systasis is determined by getting the attributions right.


Sometimes working a problem through (percieved or otherwise) helps to find greater depth. This thread has done that or is doing that, I think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
Indeed their essences may be present, and more so than in ordinary consciousness, and yet, isn't the very essence of the One (as a manner of speaking) universally present?


What is their essence? Where is their essence? How do you percieve their essence? I am in no way trying to be argumentative but our interaction with them is bound to our perception, interpreted through ordinary consciousness, as would any other mental or physical expereince. As for the essence of the One, I tend to look at the "One" through the many. I'm not too concerned with the one but rather how the one is evident in the polytheistic details. The archangels are interesting because they are not the One! :lol:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that recognizing such an immanentalism, or even calling upon the One in invocation, is hardly equivalent to an unio mystica.


I'll get back to you when (if!?) it happens to me! :lol: Seriously though, those actions can be a step towards the unio mystica or the unus mundus or any other fancy Latin term for a drastic change in consciousness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
The vast literature of Western mysticism contains many accounts of encounters with Archangels: I recommend Iamblichus' De mysteriis for a pagan theurgical perspective. (You will find no mention of cute orange togas!)


Damn. I like togas! Why can't the Angels have togas? If we take it that they exist for "real" (which I don't) and that they inhabit some secret or subtle plane (which I don't believe) then it would be absurd to assume we can know anything at all about them except for what we experience in realtion to them. So if my Angels appear to have togas to me then that would be important to me. If, however, someone said the Angel has to have a toga on and would not accept my expereince until such time as I conformed to their view, I would have a problems with that. I have an equal problem with someone (not you...just generally) saying the Angels don't or can't have orange and blue togas in the West.

Thank you for posting this Phnouthis it has some wonderful points!

MysteriousMage 07-02-2004 09:49 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, with regards to togas and such i feel that the Archangels will appear as you would like them to appear, whether it be in togas, armor, robes, etc. I personally see them as small figures in the distance and as i call their name i feel an natural aspect of them, normally it goes something like this.

Rapheal - a gust of wind from the east
Gabriel - sea mist and the smell of the ocean from the west
Micheal - searing heat from the south
Uriel - the light touch of a peice of wheat on my left cheek which is facing north

I dont know what this means since i never really see their true features but if someone could clarify that for me i would be grateful.

Phnouthis 07-03-2004 10:39 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Proclus (the Diadochus) once made the point that the details of a divine epiphany are partly due to us, and partly to the particular nature of the Being. What distiguishes an Angel from a God? I would say that while the Angel participates, as it were, in the essence of the God, the opposite doesn't apply--the consciousness associated with a God contemplates a greater degree of unity. My bias is obviously Neoplatonic, but then again, what is Western mysticism but so many refractions of the Platonic tradition? A Being who manifests in Roman atire, even if it does refer to itself as "Michael," I would still balk at enobling with the title 'Archangel,' as its appearance suggests a degree of consciousness falling short of the Archangelic. Moreover, I think it safe to say that Archangels are not Gods, but rather, as the etymology corroborates, messengers of the Gods. The first representations of Angelic beings in Mesopotamia also confirm this point: they are depicted in iconography presenting the king to a Deity. I would say that when most of us (this includes myself) do make contact with Beings, they are of the Daimonic Order, though these, of course, are implicated in the series of greater Entities. I am arguing this point so strongly only because of an experience: when one is blessed (through Purity, Faith, and "fire-cloaked" Love) with an Archangelic vision, there are no togas, only a light so bright the eyes are blinded into bliss--a calm joy settles my mood even in the rememberance. I hardly think that I'm unique. Once again, especially for those coming from a pagan background, I recommend Iamblichus' _On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Assyrians_.

Tzimtzum 07-03-2004 12:26 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phnouthis
I think Proclus (the Diadochus) once made the point that the details of a divine epiphany are partly due to us, and partly to the particular nature of the Being. What distiguishes an Angel from a God? I would say that while the Angel participates, as it were, in the essence of the God, the opposite doesn't apply--the consciousness associated with a God contemplates a greater degree of unity. My bias is obviously Neoplatonic, but then again, what is Western mysticism but so many refractions of the Platonic tradition? A Being who manifests in Roman atire, even if it does refer to itself as "Michael," I would still balk at enobling with the title 'Archangel,' as its appearance suggests a degree of consciousness falling short of the Archangelic. Moreover, I think it safe to say that Archangels are not Gods, but rather, as the etymology corroborates, messengers of the Gods. The first representations of Angelic beings in Mesopotamia also confirm this point: they are depicted in iconography presenting the king to a Deity. I would say that when most of us (this includes myself) do make contact with Beings, they are of the Daimonic Order, though these, of course, are implicated in the series of greater Entities. I am arguing this point so strongly only because of an experience: when one is blessed (through Purity, Faith, and "fire-cloaked" Love) with an Archangelic vision, there are no togas, only a light so bright the eyes are blinded into bliss--a calm joy settles my mood even in the rememberance. I hardly think that I'm unique. Once again, especially for those coming from a pagan background, I recommend Iamblichus' _On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Assyrians_.



There are different levels of incarnation, of that I'm completely certain. A budding mage isn't going to see the Archangels in their purest forms. That does change with contact and personal "alignment". It does take time though, and some bit of individual change.

One point to remember though, the "lower" incarnations have their advantages. It's easier to sit and chat with them... less squinting involved.

Radiant Star 07-03-2004 12:47 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Archangels have been the least clear and I couldn't put a face to one if I tried, they don't seem to have any nice clothing like other peoples and are much more of an impression I get.

Their colour to me seems to be a misty ivory or grey and they seem to be the largest of the beings, it is like they are in a different room to me and busy with their own thing. However, they do not feel unfriendly, just very different.

I have yet to see one clearly. I think they are more energy-like beings and we build up a picture of them, but I am not sure.

Rays

Ludi 07-03-2004 03:11 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
the eyes are blinded into bliss--a calm joy settles my mood



Curious in that case why they were traditionally depicted as saying "Fear not!" when they appeared to mortals! :)

Will_Powers_III 07-03-2004 04:12 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I see where you're coming from Phouthis. But I don't really see the Archangels as beings per se. I take the occult view that they are currents that we can tap into. Any personification that they take on is telesmaticaly projected onto them by our own selves, making them seem like 'beings', with all of the angelic trappings we've got in our heads. When we manifest them it's not to their full force. You're right that no one could handle that. We just tap into the currents 'as much as our cups can hold'. But look at it like this: You might enjoy a walk on a sunny day, but a walk on the sun might be a different matter.

Caradoc 07-03-2004 10:27 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a beginner the nature of the Archangels themselves, whether you view them as seperate entities or aspects of your higher self, must be so far beyond your understanding that you can only grasp little impressions of them. You must clothe them and shape them into forms you can vaguely understand to protect your fragile mind against being completely overwhelmed by their 'true' nature.

As I have progressed I have found the way I relate to the Archangels changes subtly all the time, there is so much more to them now than when I first began. Perhaps one day I will be able to experience them as they truly are, perhaps not. Perhaps I'm constructing more complex mirages to satisfy my mind and have never, truly, had an Archangelic encounter. It is impossible for me to answer this question at my current stage of development.

While I do subscribe to the view that says it is impossible to prove anything soever, these discussions on the nature of Archangels/Gods/Demons/etc. are valuable in learning about myself and the way in which I relate to my Universe. It is important to remember, though, that no-one here can give an answer which is absolutely true for me. I don't mean to call anyone who claims to really know a liar, perhaps you have found your truth, but it is not necessarily my truth. Perhaps one day I will reach a stage where your truth and mine is the same truth, the one great Universal Truth, but the way my mind sits right now, it can't be.

Very interesting discussion :)

Iamu 07-04-2004 06:13 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
As I have progressed I have found the way I relate to the Archangels changes subtly all the time, there is so much more to them now than when I first began. Perhaps one day I will be able to experience them as they truly are, perhaps not. Perhaps I'm constructing more complex mirages to satisfy my mind and have never, truly, had an Archangelic encounter. It is impossible for me to answer this question at my current stage of development.

While I do subscribe to the view that says it is impossible to prove anything soever, these discussions on the nature of Archangels/Gods/Demons/etc. are valuable in learning about myself and the way in which I relate to my Universe.


Caradoc, your posts rock my universe. Thank you for the excellent answer and continuing to kick ass throughout the thread.

You get a big gold star!

morphine 07-04-2004 06:36 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent point of view caradoc.
That is where my whole confusion is.
When we talk about archangels or infact any entity,is it about mind psychologically?

Pardon my ignorance.I feel any entity can suit and customize to the psyche of the individual in an effort of subconscious getting developed or in the due course of development with course of time.
it might also be possible because of the social and religious environment in which a person might be brought up.
I am really confused about planetary or the sephira placements of archangels.Why it will be absolutely necessary?

Like in East,people worship kali and perceive demons in a different way.If we follow western esoteric tradition,we rely on Goetia.
The same will hold true in different traditions across the globe.
I might sound a bit confusing here...cos I really am...:-) maybe a bit vague.

Summary
-Wont it be something like we have a few set of emotions.Its only intermingling that makes it complicated but the feelings or emotions in themselves are a selected few in purity.
Mercy,love,purity,lust,desire,fear,ambition etc etc.

I hope I am able to make it clear what I am trying to say.

Take care
Morphine

Radiant Star 07-04-2004 03:45 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caradoc

Make that two gold stars - I really found it helpful too :smile:




Rays

Vergessenheit 07-04-2004 10:28 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousMage
Well, with regards to togas and such i feel that the Archangels will appear as you would like them to appear, whether it be in togas, armor, robes, etc.


What about snazzy, fashionable business suits, color-themed to each's element...? ;-)

Phnouthis 07-05-2004 07:53 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(By the way Tzitzum, pseudo-Dionysius, for the most part=Proclus.) Central to most Western spiritual cosmologies are divine hierarchies; How do you (all) understand these hierarchies, their functions and the reason for differentiation between Beings occupying successive levels? One can certainly plead mystery, but I think those who constructed such models had definite schemes in mind.

To Will Powers: In actual magical practice, what utility does viewing Beings as currents serve? In antiquity, the apology for theurgy was based on the doctrine of the entire (even essential!) implication of the human soul in the body as a consequence of its "fall" (see Plato's Phaedrus). Such a position required that the objects and actions of the sensible world be employed to enact the soul's ascent, as even particular material objects partook (metechein or metalambanein) of the divine Forms (eide). Perhaps in the category of 'actions' one can place our social customs. Viewing the Spirits as beings permits, as the history of religions attests, an often effective form of information exchange--it's hard for ME, at least, to see the same efficacy in the metaphor of a "current". Perhaps I could also view myself and other people as "currents," but at this moment, when I consider it a priori, my reaction to all of the associations I cloak under the word 'current' would be too dry and impersonal to achieve any real rapport with "anyone" save a Turing machine (c:

Ludi 07-05-2004 08:01 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
In actual magical practice, what utility does viewing Beings as currents serve?



That's a really good question, Phnouthis.

Caradoc 07-05-2004 09:38 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Caradoc

Make that two gold stars - I really found it helpful too :smile:


Aw shucks, thanks guys *blushes* It's a long time since I 'kicked ass' and even longer since I 'rocked anybody's Universe' :D However... I think I'm supposed to be overcoming the power my ego holds over me, or destroying it, or at least squashing it a little... you're not helping me ;)

Seriously, my posts are only a personal point of view and I'm just as happy... well, alright then... I'm almost as happy if people disagree with them, but it means a lot that you would be so kind and I thank you for the comments :)



(I'm scared to post anything else now I have a rep to live up to :lol: )

MysteriousMage 07-05-2004 12:47 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hehe dont worry caradoc, any post u have will likely be beyond my sphere of knowledge. but sorry to say that isnt saying much, i just barely got the BRH memorized, the LBRP was the first ritual i performed ever so i got hat down.

to everyone in general, thanks for your help, now that i know that once i become more experienced they will appear before me instead of beyond me has given me new hope. and in regards to that today i saw micheal for the first time. he was an amazing figure to look upon. dresses in beautifully engraved plate mail armor with his sword raised over my head and a shield just as beautifull attached to his other arm. i fell to my knees at his presence and could scarce carry on the ritual, but i found the strength to finish my job. so once again thank you from the bottom of my being for ur help.

MysteriousMage 07-05-2004 12:50 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vergessenheit
What about snazzy, fashionable business suits, color-themed to each's element...? ;-)


yes, i think if you wanted them to they would appear in snazzy business attire, i just cant picture a man in a red suit carrying a flaming sword, but if ur that way then enjoy urself ;-)

Will_Powers_III 07-05-2004 04:06 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>>>>>"To Will Powers: In actual magical practice, what utility does viewing Beings as currents serve? "

Sorry, but I haven't figured out how to use the quote function yet...

I think that straight across the board personification of the 'gods' is a huge stumbling block. If you look for it you'll see it all over the place. To a large extent (and here I'm not even really refering to magic) peoples conception of God hasn't changed much since Zeus. They still see the archetype of the old gray-haired bearded man sitting on a throne in the clouds. This is of course a ridiculous image and leads people to become athiests. They find it easier to reject the whole concept than refine it. This is, of course, a huge generalization, but it is still very true.

You still see this carried over into magic, with the personified angels and such.


>>>>>>>>>>"Viewing the Spirits as beings permits, as the history of religions attests, an often effective form of information exchange--it's hard for ME, at least, to see the same efficacy in the metaphor of a "current".

That's a very good point. But I think the important thing to realize is that all the personification is a product of your individual psyche. No two psyches being alike, this enambles us to have debates over things like "do angels wear togas or not"

Much of magic has to do with effective comunication between the concience and the subconcious. Symbols are the only way these two very different aspects of the self have to talk back and forth. So, while the symbolism of a personified Angel is useful in that aspect, I believe it is also useful to look at it and understand it from a higher perspective.

Of course that's just my opinion and you're welcome to take it or leave it.

Vergessenheit 07-06-2004 01:40 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousMage
yes, i think if you wanted them to they would appear in snazzy business attire, i just cant picture a man in a red suit carrying a flaming sword, but if ur that way then enjoy urself ;-)


Hmmm, sounds like we have an idea for an occult-based Japanese cartoon on our hands.
 

Prax 07-06-2004 01:49 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haha.. there already is one. It's called "Angel Sanctuary" by Kaori Yuki. There is a manga by that name too. Pretty damned bizarre one too if you ask me. ;)

I'd just like to add my 2 cents on visualizing the archangels.
For me, this is how it is (I'm sorry if it seems bizarre):

Michael: haven't fully conceptualized him yet, but he is a tall man with long wavy blonde hair. I see him in a long robe, not armor. Perhaps the armor is underneath the robe? People say he has a spear or a flaming sword... well, I picture him with a dual sword (double ended sword). His element is Fire... (although I hear it might be earth??)

Raphael: I asked him myself how he looked or how he wanted me to see him. He's also blond! Long straight hair that's tied near the bottom. He dresses like a bard or soemthing (robes and ropes and pants). Greens and blues, bandana head wrap of some sort. He carries a large wooden staff that is more bulbous at the top. His element is Air (heard it might be fire?)

Gabriel/Jibrille: Mainly see HER as a female. Also long wavy blond hair? Blue bangs (who knows!) Dresses like some sort of dancer/gypsy! (Okay, to visualize this, think a little bit of Disney's Aladdin and and Esmeralda combined). She has a hat with decoration that looks like a harp. She has a long thin staff with a lily inside a crystal topping it. The "male" version of her dresses a little like a priest and he has very long braided hair. Her element is Water.

Uriel: I ALSO see her as a girl! She has dark skin (the others generally have peachy to sunny skin) and long, straight dark hair. She dresses in full armor but has very keen fashion sense! (don't ask.. heh). When she is on "guard duty" or sorts, she is in oversized armor that obscures her body (looks like a giant man). She owns the flaming sword that I keep thinking belongs to Michael. :) Her element is Earth (although I've heard from somewhere that it was air?)

I have no idea why so many of them are blondes. That is pretty strange.. I would have expected a more even distribution.

- Prax, still conceptualizing.

MysteriousMage 07-08-2004 12:21 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vergessenheit
Hmmm, sounds like we have an idea for an occult-based Japanese cartoon on our hands.


haha indeed. unfortunatly i dont think that particular show would ever reach the shores of politically correct America...and apparently everything that the magician practices and believes is politcally incorrect. even thought the Bible which has generated thousands of our current laws gives us very good insight into the beings of the Archangels and other matters we are still deemed socially unacceptable as a whole, but now i ask, why? and i answer myself. They are afraid. be free to post ur own comments in that regard but thats my philosophy

Aodh 07-08-2004 06:10 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SInce when? Plenty of occult-oriented art, books, movies, cartoons, etc and America is far from politically correct. I mean they're trying to get INEQUALITY ACTS passed. *rolls eyes* ANywho now I'm getting off topic.

Caradoc 07-08-2004 08:16 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aodh
God made man in his image. Then he made a woman...


I don't think that is any reference to gender, but rather to the species of Man.


Quote:

And God proceeded to create the man in His own image, in God's image he created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 1:27



Caradoc 07-08-2004 09:01 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still don't see any gender relevance in there, unless you are taking Adam and Eve as two seperate humans?

Why do you assume there are few female angels? Why do you assume gender can be assigned to angels? What function would that serve?

Aodh 07-08-2004 09:05 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meh, I don't even remember what spurred the post now so just disregard it. Possibly soemthing with to do with Prax viewing some of teh archangels as having 'female forms' at times and I just went off. It really makes little sense now as I was thinking a few minutes back, "WTF, angels don't have reproductive organs that would qualify them as male or female." and for all we know their form is amorphous. SO just disregard it all.

Tzimtzum 07-09-2004 12:02 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my experience, angels, for the most part, are genderless. However, there are some exceptions. Metatron and Sandalphon are decidedly male, I can sense that by the energy they emmanate... and the fact that they were human males at one time (Enoch and Elijah). Michael also seems to be more towards the masculine, probably due to "his" aura and presence. However, Gabriel in most instances portrays him/herself to me as female, and her energy is more feminine in nature. Which makes sense due to her connection with the moon.

Phnouthis 07-09-2004 12:29 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_Powers_III
>>>>>>>>>>"To Will Powers: In actual magical practice, what utility does viewing Beings as currents serve? "

Sorry, but I haven't figured out how to use the quote function yet...

I think that straight across the board personification of the 'gods' is a huge stumbling block. If you look for it you'll see it all over the place. To a large extent (and here I'm not even really refering to magic) peoples conception of God hasn't changed much since Zeus. They still see the archetype of the old gray-haired bearded man sitting on a throne in the clouds. This is of course a ridiculous image and leads people to become athiests. They find it easier to reject the whole concept than refine it. This is, of course, a huge generalization, but it is still very true.

You still see this carried over into magic, with the personified angels and such.



That's a very good point. But I think the important thing to realize is that all the personification is a product of your individual psyche. No two psyches being alike, this enambles us to have debates over things like "do angels wear togas or not"

Much of magic has to do with effective comunication between the concience and the subconcious. Symbols are the only way these two very different aspects of the self have to talk back and forth. So, while the symbolism of a personified Angel is useful in that aspect, I believe it is also useful to look at it and understand it from a higher perspective.

Of course that's just my opinion and you're welcome to take it or leave it.



For the purposes of mysticism I admit that personification is a "stumbling block", and yet, I just can't see how actual magical practice could dispense with such personifications. As I stated in my previous, magic utilizes the objects of quotidian experience so as to create a bridge aloft to the Powers; personification affords the most complete communication channel possible for a human being in ego consciousness. The "Jovian" projection is so enduring due to the attributes attached to such a figure--the wise and regal patriarch. Of course abstraction repulses such "nonsense," but the practicing mage will often find herself interacting with the Divine in its most awesome transcendent aspect in such a way. I have found, and I admit that this is perhaps ad me, that the Gods were simply curious abstractions, or even worse, fairytale characters, until I could embrace them with every flame of my Love. For me at least, it is much easier to establish emotional rapport with a person than with a tire. It seems that many modern magicians forget that we no longer live in the age of magic (I once recall a statement along the lines of "magic was the nuclear technology for ancient civilizations.") and that our contemporary categories of thought are often contrary to the assumptions of the magical worldview. Ah, and yet we strive to justify our Art within the parameters of contemporary philosophy, science, etc., as if, given the conclusions of the latest discoveries of these fields, one would be insane to not "believe" in magic. Certainly depth psychology did, with Jung, approach magical models, but even here we still do not have an entire assumption of our Weltanschauung. I just cannot assent to your view that rationalized conceptions of the Powers, such as this nebulous notion of archetypes, represent a "higher perspective." Moreover, I just cannot help but hold that the most accurate models of magic are to be derived from its very own phenomenology--just like in any other high-level field of inquiry. 2am...I will finish my last point tomorrow...

Fr.NovumOrganum 07-10-2004 12:48 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a question regarding arch angel classifications.

It is usually assumed that the archangel of a planet is under the jurisdiction of the archangel of the respective sephera the planet is attributed to. Does this imply that the planertary archangel is of a different degree of being than the tree of life archangels?

Likewise, we generaly assume that the archangels ruling the elemental quadrants are not the same beings as the sephrotic archangels with the same names. If this is true, are they once again a different class of beings? And then this theoretic question came up as a result of recent ritual work. If the above is true, are the elemental archangels under the domain of sandalphon, arch angel of Malkuth? Some recent work seemed to imply this (this is only intuitive on my part, not communicated directly by and archangel). Any thoughts on this?

Phnouthis 07-10-2004 03:47 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr.NovumOrganum
I have a question regarding arch angel classifications.

It is usually assumed that the archangel of a planet is under the jurisdiction of the archangel of the respective sephera the planet is attributed to. Does this imply that the planertary archangel is of a different degree of being than the tree of life archangels?

Likewise, we generaly assume that the archangels ruling the elemental quadrants are not the same beings as the sephrotic archangels with the same names. If this is true, are they once again a different class of beings? And then this theoretic question came up as a result of recent ritual work. If the above is true, are the elemental archangels under the domain of sandalphon, arch angel of Malkuth? Some recent work seemed to imply this (this is only intuitive on my part, not communicated directly by and archangel). Any thoughts on this?


IMHO the "Hermetic Kabbalah" is an atrociously motley construction more fit for application than theoretical examination. Then again, how can anyone possessing even an iota of aesthetic taste just let it all slide? The problem stems from the attempt to reconcile the Neoplatonically-inspired planetary theology with the Kabbalistic preference for an abstract cosmology based on some of the more important biblically-derived Divine attributes. Archangels occupy distinct functional roles within each respective system, hence the overlap. One can spend a lifetime working out the intellectual subtleties, though I personally don't recommend such a course (c: In my own magical system, I have entirely dispensed with Kabbalistic mysticism, repulsed by the inessentiality of its hair-splitting a priori systematizations (For an even more pedantic occult metaphysics, see Proclus' Theologia Platonica). More could be said on this point but I will leave it at this unless piqued by further inquiries.

Phnouthis 07-10-2004 04:10 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will Powers: An Archangelic epiphany is eventuated by a high degree of unity within the soul of the magician; within such a psychic state visual particulars are nullified by what I can only describe (please accept as metaphor) as a blazing light--no togas damn it! (c: What distinguishes an Archangel from an Angel is exactly this level of unity (though I accept the Powers as real beings, I do think it absurd to conceive of myths as literal descriptions of their activities). To be honest I did not invent this position, it is explicitly propounded in the theurgical treatises of antiquity--though experience had previously adumbrated. If I call upon Zebourthaunen (Hermetic Archangel of Sol found in the PGM) but the manifestation is very much "other," "mixed" and concrete, then it is safe to say that good ol' Zeb has "sent" me one of his subordinate daemones. To argue that this Being is Zeb, is certainly less severe, but analagous to arguing that because I have emptied my mind of conscious thought, I have attained to nirvikalpa samadhi. Nuff said...

Tzimtzum 07-10-2004 07:47 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr.NovumOrganum
I have a question regarding arch angel classifications.

It is usually assumed that the archangel of a planet is under the jurisdiction of the archangel of the respective sephera the planet is attributed to. Does this imply that the planertary archangel is of a different degree of being than the tree of life archangels?

Likewise, we generaly assume that the archangels ruling the elemental quadrants are not the same beings as the sephrotic archangels with the same names. If this is true, are they once again a different class of beings? And then this theoretic question came up as a result of recent ritual work. If the above is true, are the elemental archangels under the domain of sandalphon, arch angel of Malkuth? Some recent work seemed to imply this (this is only intuitive on my part, not communicated directly by and archangel). Any thoughts on this?


Well, looks like I'm the first person to reply to your post, in English. ;)

Shit, I've got two PhDs and MY eyes started to cross reading those...

Anyhow, the short of it is there's a seemingly tremendous amount of crossover in angelic correspondences.

Example:

Say you want to do a lunar invocation; well, you've got 3 classical choices.

Gabriel: Archangel of Yesod, and Yesod corresponds with the moon. That's not a bad choice.

Ophaniel: According to classical Hermetic texts, the Archangel of the lunar cycles.

Levanael: According to Jewish lore, the Archangel of the moon. Probably the most esthetically accurate according to the Rabbinic model. The root of the name is "Levennah", which naturally is the Hebrew name for Moon.

At this point, you simply go according to the model that fits your magick best. Personally, I'm a big fan of the rabbinic models (ala. Kaplan and Cooper) and would probably choose Levanael in this instance. However, any of the three would probably "get the job done". It's just a matter of personal preference and experimentation.

According to the "order of power", the sephirotic archangels are generally considered the most powerful. This also comes from the fact that they're the heads of their respective choirs... and the keepers of each of the divine names. I will add though, that the elements go beyond the sphere of Malkuth. Indeed, some rabbinic models (Gikatilla specifically) place the highest rank of angels to the elemental archangels, namely; Earth (Tzurael), Water (Mayamel), Air (Avirael), and Fire (Ashiel). This, because in those models each of the Archangels is lord of each of the 4 worlds; Ashya (Earth), Yetzirah (Water), Bereah (Air), Adsolut (Fire).

I could give you my opinions based on my experiences, but they may not be of much value to you. As they are only my experiences.

Fr.NovumOrganum 07-10-2004 07:57 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tzimtzum:

thank you very much for your reply. 2 phds? damn you've got me beat; i've only got one:mrgreen:.

I would love to hear your ideas, if you feel you wish to share them. Your posts are always very clear and informative, and in my experience, right on target.

I was thinking of the archangels we call during the pentagram rituals, if I didn't make myself clear.

Tzimtzum 07-10-2004 11:55 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The LBRP isn't just a grouding rite involving the elements. The quarters are also the spheres of Tipereth, Netzach, Hod, and Yesod. One exercise in the LBRP is to visualize that you are standing at the inersection of the vertical path between Tiphereth and Yesod, and the horizontal path between Hod and Netzach. This would mean that the 4 archangels in the LBRP not only function in their elemental capacity (which they're quite capable of doing) but also in their sepherotic capacity, more than doubling the power of the rite if you actualize it. So, yes, I believe they truly are the same.

Try this... change the divine names in the LBRP to the following:

East: Adonai Eloah
South: Elohim Tzevaoth
West: Shaddai Al Chai
North: Adonai Tzevaoth

Visualize that each of the pentagrams you inscribe are also the corresponding sepherah, and after you draw the pentagram, and as you vibrate each Divine name, visualize that sepherah brilliantly illuminating into it's appropriate color.

East: Yellow
South: Green
West: Purple
North: Orange

Perform the rest of the rite as normal.

I AM 07-10-2004 02:30 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been following this Topic with interest since it was first introduced. First I will say that Caradoc and Tzimtzum have made excellent posts IMO. Others have made great posts as well.

From my standpoint I think that many Magickians are too awestruck by the Arch Angels and thus miss a great opportunity. They are CERTAINLY impressive beings (Not constructs of the mind; BEINGS). However, IMO the Magickian should also focus on having a PERSONAL relationship with the Arch Angels.

I have had a very strong relationship with both Gabriel and Michael. Both have always appeared to me as male. I have seen them in their "Blinding" aspect as well as their more personal aspect. ON MY REQUEST they have kept their forms those that I can relate to the easiest. These are forms THEY presented to me not ones I made up for them.

Both have been there for me when I needed them. They, especially Gabriel, were some of my first teachers. They introduced me to many others. They showed me the Astral and gave me my first tools. They taught me how to protect myself in my early years.

In the LBRP they serve a specific purpose that has already been discussed. Outside the LBRP they can be MUCH MORE if the Magickian will open their eyes and take advantage of what they have to offer.

Be awestruck certainly. Then get over it and approach them as teachers. Over time they can become true allies. To gain this experience one has only to open themselves up to them. Ask and you shall receive...

Time and time again I have seen that Magickians are often too timid when dealing with other Entities. They view the entities as being unapproachable much as a young teenager sometimes sees the gorgeous object of their desire being unattainable. Just ask. Take that first step courageously. You might be surprised at the results. They may not answer immediately but they might surprise you.

This advice applies to Gods, Arch Angels, and any other entity that you encounter either accidently or by specific intent. And yes, take the normal precautions and protect yourself. They will respect that even if they sometimes find it humorous.

This has been my experience. I hope this helps.

Humbly, I AM

Radiant Star 07-10-2004 02:39 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I tended to let the Archangelsget on with their job in the LBRP, but the being that talks to me suggested that I talk to them, I don't have a clear image of them like I do the being, but I did get some responses and they are all so different!

I didn't really know what to say, but one of them is particularly interested in helping me and one was very quiet and seemed to take a while to consider things and then eventually reply. One was quite outgoing and a 'go for it' type, full of passion and the other seemed to be more feminine and told me to make the most of my feminine side and accept being female!

Now I have made the first moves to talking with them, I will do it again. It has made a difference to how I feel about my circle, because they seemed to be there as strangers, now the place feels more welcoming.

Rays

Caradoc 07-11-2004 06:56 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by I AM
From my standpoint I think that many Magickians are too awestruck by the Arch Angels and thus miss a great opportunity. They are CERTAINLY impressive beings (Not constructs of the mind; BEINGS). However, IMO the Magickian should also focus on having a PERSONAL relationship with the Arch Angels.

...

Be awestruck certainly. Then get over it and approach them as teachers. Over time they can become true allies. To gain this experience one has only to open themselves up to them. Ask and you shall receive...

Time and time again I have seen that Magickians are often too timid when dealing with other Entities.

I must admit that I definitely fall into that category, although I may sound as if I think I already know it all at times. Gradually my relationship with the Archangels is growing, as I have said, but I still feel I am holding back a lot and not fully allowing myself to experience them as I should. I still feel them as more overwhelming than the Gods I would say I have a personal relationship with, which makes no sense at all :?

Thanks for a great post, I AM, and reminding me of some serious work I still have to do. I'll be working on this problem now you've reminded me it exists... that's what we're all here for, right? :)

Could you possibly post something which might help me in this endeavour? Other than the simple advice you have already given... just be open... just ask... I know that's really the only way to approach anything but for some reason I have serious problems approaching the Archangels this way. Even some little post just to give me the courage to take the step, or an account (as much as you are comfortable with) of your first experiences in making personal contact beyond the bounds of the LBRP, would be gratefully accepted :)




PS... You could just call me a magickal wuss and ignore my question if you want to ;)

Ekron 07-11-2004 03:57 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzimtzum

Try this... change the divine names in the LBRP to the following:

East: Adonai Eloah
South: Adonai Tzevaoth
West: Shaddai Al Chai
North: Elohim Tzevaoth



I 'm assuming you are placing Tiphareth=E, Netzach=S, Hod=W, Yesod=N? Could you please explain your reasons for using these words of power. For they don't seem to be the traditional ones for these Sephira.

With regards, Ekron.

I AM 07-11-2004 10:15 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caradoc
Could you possibly post something which might help me in this endeavour? Other than the simple advice you have already given... just be open... just ask... I know that's really the only way to approach anything but for some reason I have serious problems approaching the Archangels this way. Even some little post just to give me the courage to take the step, or an account (as much as you are comfortable with) of your first experiences in making personal contact beyond the bounds of the LBRP, would be gratefully accepted :)


PS... You could just call me a magickal wuss and ignore my question if you want to ;)



Hey Caradoc!

I would NOT ignore your question. I have also received PMs asking for the same type of information. Little did I know that my post would generate such interest.

Please give me a couple of days to answer your question. I am not ignoring you or others it is just that my time is limited for the next few days.

BTW, we are all Magickial wusses. My experience and background is different than yours and others. I am sometimes awestruck at the knowledge of some in these Forums, expecially when discussing specifics about Thelema, Golden Dawn, and Enochian. Talk about feeling ignorant!

Humbly, I AM

Tzimtzum 07-12-2004 12:17 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekron
I 'm assuming you are placing Tiphareth=E, Netzach=S, Hod=W, Yesod=N? Could you please explain your reasons for using these words of power. For they don't seem to be the traditional ones for these Sephira.

With regards, Ekron.


Nice catch! I apologize profusely. That's what I get for posting when I'm so damned sleepy and mutlitasking. Sorry guys, ouch! :o
 


www.sacred-magick.com

Powered By:

Soluzen Hosting Solutions