Demons: Beneficial Or Not?, The thread to end all disputes Options

HOLD UP

acid 09
err... wait.... SUCCUBUS! RUN!!!!

it could very well be Succubus.
If this the case (and not a sexual oriented dream) stay away from it. Its like a venus fly trap waiting for its next victom.

"It's a good thing!"
"It's a bad thing!"
"It's a lover!"
"It's a parasite!"
"It's a succubus!"

You know what? It these petty arguments that just piss me off.
(IMG:http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/3c/RAAAAGE.png)

"FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-"

The Synopsis:
Do Demons hate us, or love us? (or are they neutral?)

The traditionalists say that demons are malefactors, but the followers of the left-hand path say that they are benefactors. The neutralists say that they are akin to the handling of Nuclear energy: Beneficient if the science is known.

Argument - Nature of the Beast:
But lately, it always seems to boil down to the argument as to whether Demons are inherently benevolent, or inherently malevolent, or for all we know, they have their own agenda and are as whimsical as we humans if not more.

-Ceremonial Argument
Malevolent. These are beings that represent forces of the mundane, material, and the forces of addiction. They thrive off of suffering, and do not care about those who they make suffer for their own gain. They represent the forces of sin (however this is defined), and stand against the grand-ultimate "I AM". They stand for illusions, trickery, and lies.

They never give you what you want, and always leave you wanting more, never giving full-on contentment.

-LHP Argument
Benevolent. These are beings that were demonized by our petty mortal perceptions. From our experiences, they help us get what we want to be happy.

We get power, they get respect. It's give and take, done in a manner which is befitting of human beings, given that this is the best we can do.

Argument - Interaction:
Then, it moves onto the subject on how to encounter one of these beings in the proper manner. "

-Ceremonial argument
Set up by ceremonial magicians, the traditionalists say, "You have to use coercion because of all they know."

Rebuttal: That is the same argument used by white supremacists about blacks, saying, "You must treat them harshly and like animals because primitive impulses and crime is all they know."

Counter-rebuttal: But history shows that Demons have such behaviors, agendas, and motives

Retro-counter-rebuttal: How do you know that it is Demons that have such behaviors and not other entities that wish to frame others? The idea and urge to frame another for your actions as a scapegoat is the true evil act. What's more, you arbitrarily label any malificent spirit as "Demon," when in the LHP experience, "Demons" work for the benefit of humankind when asked.

What's more, who wouldn't act that way if treated with constant coercion?

-LHP Argument
Treat them with respect, and you will be treated as such back. Reciprocation is big, because many times, Demons (or preferred, Daemons) help in matters of retribution and vindication. On this basis, it is fair to say, that respect comes as the prime factor.

All this is based on a pact of trust established, noted, and expressed through the magicians willful conjuration of the spirit in question. If the magician did not respect this entity, why bother calling at all? On top of that, if the magician was not respectable, what entity of power, mortal or otherwise, would even obey or honor a call like that to such a person?

Rebuttal: Never go in without protection, lest you choose to make a decision stupidly.

Counter-Rebuttal: Honesty, Trust, and Respect is what protects the integrity of the parties involved, not some ordered, mechanical procedure to invoke some authority from a celestial bureaucracy.

Retro-counter-rebuttal: It is the authority of this system, by invoking the name of the grand-ultimate, the "I AM," that all things are compelled to obey. This gives the magician full discretion to use his power, and the choice to use it responsibly.


Added note: An interesting observation I have seen about these arguments, is how close they resemble the egregores of "Conservatives" vs "Liberals" on our Earth.

The Ceremonialist ideal seems to resemble the "Conservatives" more in the attitudes, based on the shared priorities of Defense, Authority, Order, and Gain.

The LHP ideal seems to resemble more "Liberal" ideals, such as personal freedom unfettered by the interference of others and their preferences, trust in the powers that they interact with for help on the basis that things are meant to work naturally for a common beneficience, and complete acceptance and adherence to the self as a means for the pursuit of happiness.

"Conservatives" seem to have a history of coersion in their methods for their gain, while "Liberals" tend to care more for the other party in question, in hopes that the reciprocation may be fair, or even greater, based on favorable standings.

CONCLUSION:

"Shadow vs Vorlon argument"

Sometimes it is sensible to destroy or overthrow a system that does not work, and there are times where it is necessary to follow the rules precisely, both for the betterment of ourselves, those around us, and our world as a whole.

Neither are correct or wrong: They both simply -are-, and have different agendas. This must be acknowledged.

As above, so below: We have corrupt people and we have just people on both sides of the spectrum. There are benevolent and malevolent spirits on both sides of the spectrum.

It seems to be more or less about preference and affinity towards the more "Orthodox" energies of the universe or, in contrast, the "Unorthodox."

With all these dualities and dialectics, I am very tempted to say "screw it" and go Taoist.
------

Now, the real question is, what ARE their agendas, anyway?

Without bias, without prejudgments, without taking fear, hatred, or other emotions into play, using only our higher human reasoning of which we as human beings can pride ourselves on, despite it's limited function, use, and ability, make some inferences as to the Agendas of the following classifications of spirits:

-Judeo-christian God and his angels
-Daemons of the Goetia
-The various pantheons, subdivided by their cultures
-Chthonic Proto-titans and demiurgic forces

I wish to know this, so that I can make the voluntary, willful, fully-informed choice to go with, align with, and work with whomever I please.

The stage is set. The arguments and observations layed down.

(IMG:http://www.gameaxis.com/img/blog/65/Image/fight.JPG)

Ahhh.....
I hope that this topic gets the attention it deserves!

That being said...
I wish to throw some thoughts into the broth.
Have you ever drawn parallels between magic and mankinds politics, both socio-economic or theurgical?
Perhaps we, as human beings, are responsible for EVERYTHING religous and magical! We created the gods, etc.
Something to truly ponder.
When dealing with ANY 'outside' entity it would be prudent to strip away everything human about it. What is left will help illustrate your path to interaction. As humans, we love mirrors and, from personal experience, love to hear ourselves talk/think. LOL!
I've come to believe that most of the entity work that occurs is actually the practioner communicating with themselves through a variety of media and filters. I do believe that there are non-human entities as well...but only a small fraction of humans are capable of interaction with these entities or...notice that they are interacting at any given time/place. It always bothered me to find hierarchal lists of demons mirroring the local politics at that time. Given also the magical idea that our astral and ethereal planes mimick the physical and that thoughtforms that are fed often enough form strong energy pools be they of traditional or newer origin. The goddess Astarte is one thing and the demon Astaroth is another...but they share a similar origin! Both have decidedly different vibration rates/currents. And there is a differencee...not this newage idea of everything being comfortably homogenous! All gods are not the same...giving them the attribute of sex/dualism supports this! I digress...


More things to think on.
En Garde!
Be well! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Sounds a bit like you've already made your mind up. No judgment; just an observation.

My point of view on this is actually sort of opposite to Bym's, although in a round-about sort of way its complementary, to me, in that our relationship with the consciousness of the universe is reciprocal.

That being, that humankind, our development, politics, religious, and social attributes, are ultimately reflections of higher currents of energy in the universe that we cannot help but adhere to even as we ultimately affect the flow of those currents.

In other words, there is 'evil' as we define it, whether it is universally evil or not, because such a force exists in the universe and as a whole we cannot help but manifest that 'evil' any more than we can help manifesting the 'good'. As forces of nature, these two things are not really 'good' or 'evil' in my opinion from a universal point of view, any more than the lion who eats the gazelle is committing murder, or the tsunami that kills thousands, etc. These destructive events are, from my own point of view, caused by the same destructive current that when manifested in human interaction would be called 'evil'.

So driven by these natural forces are we that the majority of the human population does not really have free will - every decision is made for them because although the thought processes occur in their brain, they are simply by products of those higher interactions igniting the environment for those thoughts to take place. Attaining free will is, in my opinion, a matter of awakening to those higher currents and making one's own decisions regardless of the energetic environment, as awareness or that environment allows one to see when our 'free will' is being influenced.

That said, it follows that I don't personally believe in a 'benevolent' creator the same way the word is typically used - the human definition of benevolence is conditional and limited in its scope, and is childish when viewed through a cosmic lens, as though we are in some way entitled to 'good' in the universe without really understanding or accepting our role in the natural world. We are as much a destructive force as a creative one.

All of this actually boils down to the place of these entities in that natural environment. Just as we are reflections of that cosmic consciousness, so are all other conscious beings, regardless of the degree of that consciousness in comparison to a human being. The ocean, rocks, plants, the soil, the birds and bees and everything in the universe is connected to this consciousness and reflects some aspect of it, as do the unseen beings that we call spirits. They have agendas, purpose, a range of actions they are capable of, and tendencies towards different parts of that consciousness just as we do but not necessarily the same way we do. Some entities are manifestations of that destructive current that we label evil, and when their actions are held to human standards they are evil and destructive. Held to cosmic standards they are simply reflecting the nature of creation.

Furthermore, I do not believe in entities that are strictly non-physical as we understand it - there is no entity said to, or thought to, accomplish anything totally outside the realm of the natural world although they are attributed 'super natural' abilities, they none the less deal in changes of some kind in the physical, mental, or astral layers of our existence. The entities we evoke, invoke, and interact with in various ways, are the coalesced consciousness of natural forces concentrated into a communicable form so that we can interact directly with it. One facet of a hyper-sphere, if you will, the other facets not seen but present as the actually force of nature elsewhere throughout the universe. I believe the same to be the case when certain 'entities' are in fact projections of human consciousness, the magician for instance rotating the hyper-solid of his consciousness or even the grand human consciousness itself, into alignment with his senses. This 'drawing down' of entities in the kabalistic forumulae, for instance, is a process marked by the use of a circle which follows a path from kether to, ultimately and symbolically, malkhut - the unformed into the physical world. While that may not make sense to everyone, I suspect (no offense intended towards others) that you understand what I am expressing, Xenomancer.

As to the morality of these interactions, I think that morality is a human conception and I tend to follow with the neutralist approach - some of these beings are malevolent by their nature in comparison to human standards, and must be handled properly. Even benevolent beings must be handled properly, though there is less immediate danger. Beware the individual who has your 'best interests at heart', as this assumes they know what your interests are, and which ones are best.

Killing, deception, trickery, these things exist in nature, they are not just reflected by mankind. We can tame wild, predatory animals to work for us but they are still dangerous as that is their nature. Insects have camouflage to make themselves look bigger than they are, angler fish have shiny lures to attract the unsuspecting prey (interesting pray/prey bet that means something...) Nature lies, therefore human beings lie, therefore every conscious thing may have the potential to lie if it reflects that aspect of cosmic consciousness.

All that said, you give for basic classifications here:

-Judeo-christian God and his angels
-Daemons of the Goetia
-The various pantheons, subdivided by their cultures
-Chthonic Proto-titans and demiurgic forces

...and ask for a reasoned understanding of their motives. The problem is, we don't know their motives until we talk to them and find out how they act. It is generally assumed that God and his Angels are benevolent in nature, but look at the history of these beings, can everything they do be said to be benevolent by human standards? Is this another case of the human definition of the word 'benevolent' which is itself a cheap human construct?

The daemons of the goetia, even in the book it says some of these beings will lie to you or harm you if allowed, but others will come easily and gladly help the magician who calls them. The book itself seems to be based on some personal experience (that of solomon or whoever) of the spirits in action rather than reputation.

Various pantheons include conceptions of good and evil as well, some cultures are more pessimistic than others, and some are decidedly human in their wanton mood swings.

Chthonic Proto-Titans are generally talked about as though they desire the destruction of all the 'new gods' or all of mankind, or all of creation depending on the mythology - benevolence appears to be right out when weighed with human interests, but cosmically? Maybe there is a good reason they want these things, you'd have to ask and reason for yourself based on what they say.

As with so many things, it is not so cut and dry, and Taoist philosophy is a very naturalistic approach which I would support - a thing is what a thing is, to treat it as though it were not that thing is to deny the reality of the situation and become out of sync with the natural flow. I do not think there is a catch-all philosophy beyond that when dealing with these beings - we must simply take precautions when appropriate, become informed, and ask questions of these beings - then evaluate those answers to the best of our ability (remember that deception is part of nature), and take action from there.

peace

The Synopsis:
Do Demons hate us, or love us? (or are they neutral?)

Depends which group you're talking about, really.

In my own mind, the Goetics in particular get an excessively bad rap, IMHO.

From everything I've seen with them, while sure, there are a couple who will seriously act out if given half the chance, they aren't necessarily the majority. Most of them, in moral terms, seem to be relatively neutral. If you're diplomatic with them, you might get what you want, depending (like with most people, truthfully) on what's in it for them.

Truthfully, even Forcalor, when Imperial Arts called him up, actually seemed like he had real integrity. I'm normally a huge fan of Imperial's work, but in this case, Imperial was trying to get him to kill someone purely (it seemed, anywayz) to prove that magick worked. Forcalor seemed pissed about this, and I didn't blame him. He said he thought it was inappropriate, and he didn't want to do it. He said that human beings don't actually have the right to kill each other at all.

In my one improv attempt at calling a Goetic so far, (Paimon) I was firm to the point of even being a little arrogant, however I also gave him the proscribed offering as well. I had communication with him, and he was pompous and tried to jerk me around.

How I treated Paimon basically reflects my attitude towards dealing with demons in particular, evocation wise. (Angels are different, because while I might not be at the same level, I consider them on the same "side" essentially)

Said attitude is this:-

- I will take the time to figure out what your individual little quirks and requirements are, and attempt to meet them, within reason. I will use incense, and I will provide offerings for you. I won't actually do that because I have to do it, either. I do it partly because I want to exercise at least some compassion towards you, while being firm, but also because if you're co-operative with me, I'm possibly going to want to establish a repeat working relationship with you, and I know that if we're going to be friends rather than me just relying on the curses, it's important for me to be civil.

- I will not make overly frivolous requests of you in order to provoke you, and I ordinarily will not ask you to kill anyone in my stead, because I know that you are as a soldier under me, and if you kill anyone in my stead, I am as much morally and karmically responsible as if I physically did it myself. The only time I would ask you to kill someone remotely would be if I was willing to do it myself if I was close to the person, and I was prepared to wear the consequences. I will never order you to do that which I would be unwilling to do myself, if I had the ability.

- I will not attempt to ask you for information or services outside your particular office, because I know you're not required to obey me if I do that, and that's fine. There are conditions that we both have to work within.

If you're square with me, willingly do what I want, don't jerk me around, don't lie to me, and don't give me attitude, the following beneficial things (for you) will happen.

- I will remember you as being one of the spirits who I've dealt with who behaved positively towards me, and will seek you out again.

- If/when I have the money, as part of the above, I will get your sigil more permanently rendered.

- I will recommend your name to other people who do evocations, as a spirit who is positive to deal with.

- I will be courteous towards you, and will not torture you with the curses for as long as you co-operate.

If you're not willing to play well with me, however, (and particularly if you lie to me and I find out about it, as that is the one thing that will truly enrage me) I will not hesitate to kick your ass, and if you refuse to co-operate after I have also tried to be decent towards you as outlined above, it will also likely be with a fair amount of prejudice. I have the authority to do that, from four sources.

a) The Solomonic covenant, as the curses are my main offensive weapons against you. I might be a Gentile, and I might not be Christian as such any more, but I do still believe in the historical reality of Jesus Christ, and the points of the Nicene Creed, and I am aware of the reality of the God of Israel, who is one of the signatories of said covenant, as well.

b) The four archangels, two of whom I've had individual dealings with. I'm obviously nowhere near as highly developed as these guys, but dualistically speaking I at least try to be on the solar team; I'm not a demonolator, and I'm not a Satanist.

c) My own blood covenant with Kali Ma, who was/is herself a demon slayer.

d) My humanity. I am, to quote Bardon, a quadrapolar being, and being human on planet Earth means I have something which neither angels nor demons have; the ability to evolve, and change my position in the universe. By contrast, the role of both angels and demons, whether imprisoned or not, is fixed. I don't consider myself higher up the chain than the angels, but with the demons I am, and I'm not afraid to let them know about it. Someone else said to me that I should mind my manners with Paimon, because he is a King. My response was, (and is) "Not over me, he isn't."

This post has been edited by Petrus: Jun 9 2009, 08:01 PM

"It's a good thing!"
"It's a bad thing!"
"It's a lover!"
"It's a parasite!"
"It's a succubus!"

You know what? It these petty arguments that just piss me off.

You should watch Krogmandune and the flamming sword of fire...

If it harms you - it's probably not a good thing to be around

Simple enough argument right there.

As far as "demons" go I think people should examine the very nature of their existance. Is there actually a race of beings that call themselves "Daimons" that live on some alternate planes of existance? It depends who you ask. Are they transmutable or immutable beings? If they are immutable from the nature of their reality they have no ability to cross the boundry of their realm. If that is the case then it doesn't matter what you or I think because they are apart from us and cannot interfere. If they are a transmutable race of powerful beings - why not pop up in the white house and give Mr. Obama a visit - or do they just like to be as covert as possible?

From my core beliefs the scientist in me finds it hard to believe in demons, angels, fairies pixies and unicorns - at least on our level of existance. If these entities were as real as the key board I am typing on, then why haven't we found even evidence of such beings? On an other level from my occult background I do believe there is more to the nature of this reality than what we just see in front of us. I have no reason to not believe in the possibility of endless realms covering a spectrum of alternate realities with infanite possibilities. So who's to say that somewhere out there, there isn't some race of "Daimons" who've figured out how to travel other realms and interact with other beings on those realms - like sliders!

The power of intelligence enables us to create and not just create like a bee makes a hive but beyond instict and through higher imagination. Therefore thought itself is the essence of creation, thus demonstrating a cosmic force that created all we know. Of course humans did not create the universe. But if we were indeed created in the likeness of a divine force, at least in that we too can create then our very thoughts have power. The power of thought can create archtypes or personifications of natural or super natural forces - including demons. The problem with this theory is that with nearly 7 billion minds each puring their own thoughts, what power does pure thought really have? I mean a person thinks of a pink golf ball does another person on the other side of the planet think the same thing? Or by simply typing "pink golf ball" do I contain that image only to those who read this section?

Regardless of the truth of reality, which we could argue endlessly about, there is denotation and conotation. Denotation is the actual definition of something. Conotation is the definition of something ascribed within a given context. For example "good" vs "evil". Some people feel that killing killers is "good" whereas some think it is "evil". And some people who think it is "evil" would want revenge if someone close to them was brutally murdered. Within that context, those who think killing killers is evil reach a point where they find a way to justify killing. So in that sense, what is good or evil? Maybe good just benefits only me and evil only benefits you - within the context of my perception and visa versa within the context of your perception. My point is that good and evil are not forces of nature, just ascribed value within a given context. Good and evil exist as nothing more.

So where am I going with this? Perception is everything. The way we percieve the world around us builds how we understand the nature of reality and allows us to exist and even transcend it. But the way we percieve things varies from one person to the next. No two people percieve the same thing and nobody at all can percieve everything at once. Case in point - How does a blind man describe the color purple? Or how does a deaf man describe a symphony? They can speculate about it. They can share the same thoughts that someone else tells them, but they themselves will never get a fully personal grasp due to their handy caps. Likewise, you and I, as relatively healthy people with no major disabilities (I assume) cannot describe wave lengths of sound that go beyond our ability to hear except to say they are really loud or really quiet. We cannot explain the apperance of gamma radiation beyond the way we see it in a mass spectrameter or otherwise described by physicist. Therefore every human is inveriably handy capped in that even though they can think and imagine they never really grasp the whole picture. Since no two think exactly alike or percieve things exactly the same way - nothing is true and everything is permissible.

This takes me to thought forms and magickal contructs, fortunately I don't need to say much because bym already got to it. I will say that people can create their own thought forms. From my perception the archetypal "demon" represents an unpleasent and nasty thought form or spirit. One that cause fear, anxiety, anger, saddness and suffering. So we can toss that into the "evil" catagory. Now going by my own logic "evil" doesn't really mean "evil" because "evil" doesn't exist. Its merely an expression of value. Thus a demon that may be percieved as evil may really be good within the right given context. And visa versa as well. The same is true for any manner of other entities - even guardian angels (the opitomy of "good").

This brings me to my bottom line...

Screw your arguments because they don't really mean anything any way! And what they mean to me or you, means something different to someone else. Within the right given context what is good can be evil and what is evil can be good. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/evil2.gif)

Do Demons hate us, or love us? (or are they neutral?)

(respectfully)
I think your lumping Demons all together as if they were uniorm in behaviour.
(like lumping all humans together as if humans had a single uniform behaviour even though it may not be accurate)

Demon can hate us. Demons can love us. Demons can be neutral.
It all depends on the Individual demon (similar to people*).

*eg.
-There are people who are sociopathtic serial killers
-There are people who are philantropists
-There are people who are indifferent
etc.

This post has been edited by Jenfucius: Jun 10 2009, 05:45 PM