invocation of earth elemental
-
I think the main point to get from this is... don't necessarily trust Levi on technicalities.
He's fantastic for philosophy and right-seing, but sometimes a bit whacked on technique.
-
Ok, thanks for confirmation.
I’m currently transforming my entire library into pdf form – its incredibly efficient for research. If you could recommend any good titles for the evocation of elementals that would be appreciated (I already have *776 ½, *Paracelsus’ treatise on Elementals and Bardon’s Practical Magical Evocation).
-
For historic research and context, add The Greater Key of Solomon and The Magus.
-
If the Elemental Sovereigns (Paralda, Niksa, Djinn and Ghob) are forces of Nature, is there a deity that corresponds to the concept of “Nature” and where would it be listed in 776 1/2? I am trying to find out who these Elemental Sovereigns answer to.
Elementals are said to exist inside their elemental world, but can they perceive outside of their respective world into the worlds of other elementals or our world?
Are the elementals similar to voudon loas?
Thanks for feedback.
-
@he atlas itch said
"If the Elemental Sovereigns (Paralda, Niksa, Djinn and Ghob) are forces of Nature, is there a deity that corresponds to the concept of “Nature” and where would it be listed in 776 1/2? I am trying to find out who these Elemental Sovereigns answer to."
Qabalisically, they each answer to the Divine Name of their element.
In another sense, though, all distinctly elemental powers are forces of Malkuth, so they are manageable under its hierarchy as the field of the elements.
"Are the elementals similar to voudon loas?"
No, I think the level is all wrong (though the behavior is right!). The loas (like the Orishi) are much higher-rank entities than mere elementals. For example, they have distinctive character and characteristics. They serve much of the function of gods in other panetheons, but I've never had the feeling they are even Briatic. (However, they might well be Briatic - archangelic - beings in cheap clothing.) - Their primacy in those religions is too high to be merely elementals, but they could well be the very top of the elemental hierarchies, like the highest ranking (non-arch) angels, similar to the planetary angels; or, among the elemental hierarchies, the kerubim.
-
Thanks for clarification on the loas. One of the interesting lines of thinking that has opened up with this earth working is the question of what makes us human.
-
@he atlas itch said
"Thanks for clarification on the loas. One of the interesting lines of thinking that has opened up with this earth working is the question of what makes us human."
The traditional answer is that we are Microcosms. That is, we have all elements (all categories of experience) inherently within us.
Now, philosophically we can recognize the chauvinism in this; but, philosophically, we can also recognize that all this can mean in practice is that we have within us all those categories of experience that are inherently present in humans And we call these the five elements (or 4 elements + Spirit or Quintessence which is their integration).
This, I am sure, is the best meaning of the statement in Genesis that Elohim (who is the original Pentagrammaton of Qabalah) made humanity in Her image: We are made, inwardly and outwardly, in the image of the pentagram.
-
Given Paracelsus' claim that elementals are attracted to humans because we have souls and all the warnings against forming pacts with them, where does the concept of soul fit into this?
-
@he atlas itch said
"Given Paracelsus' claim that elementals are attracted to humans because we have souls and all the warnings against forming pacts with them, where does the concept of soul fit into this?"
That (in this context) means the top point of the pentagram, Spirit or Quintessence - specifically seen (depending on the author or context) either as a synthesis that comes from having all the component elements within us OR a point of contact with God.
Elementals have just one point of the pentagram (each) to their nature. Humans have five.
-
If Quintessence integrates the other four elements and allows their admixture, it would be identical to the principle of movement and change on the material plane. Moreover if time is measured through changes in form, that would suggest Quintessence partakes of the timeless that creates the perception of time.
Now Paracelsus states that elementals inhabit their respective kingdoms and are similar to humans – they form societies, marry, have offspring, are artisans of their elements. Except they lack souls. When they die, there is nothing left. He believed elementals exist as a Divine warning to humanity. If humans do not take care of their souls and live morally, God can raise up a new species from elementals to replace humanity on the earth. This recalls Genesis where the Elohim are said to have created Adam from the “red earth” before rendering him into the Microcosm. The Sufi view of history is a game between God and Iblis – who the Yezidis worship as the Peacock Angel, Melek Tawus - to determine whether humans contain a divine spark or are composed only of the elements. Iblis, who vowed to worship only God, refused to prostrate himself when God created humanity and commanded all His angels to bow down and worship the new species. Subsequently Iblis’ role has been to tempt humanity and prove there is nothing special about this species, thus vindicating his vow to worship only God, or humanity will evolve until God’s command to his angels is vindicated.
The above suggests the hierarchical difference between elementals and humans, and humans and angels, contains an evolutionary morality tale. Or rather Evolution itself is the moral. Paracelsus’ views on elementals comes from Luke 3:8:
*Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. *
Given that elementals are capable of movement and reproduction, thus fulfilling the criteria of movement and change implied by the Quintessence, but lack souls, it seems more correct to say that “soul” is the point of contact with God. Now many religions warn that when a civilization becomes decadent and materialistic, the spiritual connection to the Creator (soul) becomes lost. Materialistic people with no souls still live, work, reproduce and do a great many things – identical to the elementals – perhaps with dead eyes, but moving nonetheless. So “soul” does not seem to be quite the same thing as Quintessence. I would identify "soul" with notions of intense feeling (wonder, awe, sense of beauty) or heart intelligence.
Now I realize evocation is considered low magick, but I am specifically interested in the evocation of elementals – currently the element of Earth. Our group has been working under the purpose of “gaining insight into the laws of Nature,” as Levi put it, and the insights so far have been interesting, to say the least. One thing that has become clear is that humanity’s loss of awareness of elementals as guardians of their elements following the Age of Enlightenment cannot be separated from the subsequent exploitation and pollution of the planet.
Questions:
Is the “Ad” of Adonai the same root as the “Ad” of Adam and does it signify “earth”?
Why is the Divine Name for Fire (Elohim) and not Earth (Adonai) the creator of Adam in Genesis?
-
@he atlas itch said
"Is the “Ad” of Adonai the same root as the “Ad” of Adam and does it signify “earth”?"
No. Adam (ADM) is DM, dam, blood, with an Aleph before it. The "redness" is in the DM part, and the whole name shows humanity as blood infused with the life-breath.
That's the symbolic reading. The grammatical part is that the Hebrew triliteral root ADM means "make, produce." ADM, "humanity," is "the made." - There is a separate root ADM which means more or less "red," and these often are confused; there does seem to be some sort of pun involved, that "humans are red."
Adonai is a grammatical form of ADVN, adon, "lord, master." This, in turn, comes from the trileral root ADN which means "firm, strong."
"Why is the Divine Name for Fire (Elohim) and not Earth (Adonai) the creator of Adam in Genesis?"
Elohim is the power of all creation, not just of humanity. It is the Divine Nameof Binah, and implicitly related to b'riah, "creation." (Oops, wait a minute: It's not implicit - it's explicit. The first book of the Torah begins Berashith bera Elohim eth-ha-shamayim ve-eth ha-aretz, "In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth.")
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"No. Adam (ADM) is DM, dam, blood, with an Aleph before it. The "redness" is in the DM part, and the whole name shows humanity as blood infused with the life-breath."
What is the interpretation of Genesis 2:7 where it states God formed Adam from the “dust of the ground”? Is there any connection between Adam and the element of Earth?
@Jim Eshelman said
"That's the symbolic reading. The grammatical part is that the Hebrew triliteral root ADM means "make, produce." ADM, "humanity," is "the made.""
That’s very interesting. My own research suggests the concept of “manu” in terms like “manufacturer”, symbolized by the hand, may signify the earliest humans. Namely humans characterized as manufacturers, creators with their hands, handicrafts, etc. We are distinguished from apes by having opposable thumbs. Curiously the five fingers of the hand could symbolize the five elements as well. That suggests another interpretation of the Elohim creating Adam “in Her Image”: in the same way that Adam was made by the Divine Creator, Adam is “a maker of things”.
-
In that verse, "the ground" (ha-Admah) from which the soil/dust is taken is the same root as Adam
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"No. Adam (ADM) is DM, dam, blood, with an Aleph before it. The "redness" is in the DM part, and the whole name shows humanity as blood infused with the life-breath."What is the interpretation of Genesis 2:7 where it states God formed Adam from the “dust of the ground”? Is there any connection between Adam and the element of Earth?"
First point to note is that this is sometimes referred to as "the second creation story of Adam." The first creation of humanity is in 1:27, where Elohim created ha-Adam (male and female) in Elohim's image.
Then we come to a version so different as to seem a different telling of the story, or even a different event. In 2:7 it is not Elohim, but Y.H.V.H. Elohim that is doing the task; and it is not creation (b'ra) for formation (yetzer) that occurs. The simplest (but not only) explanation is that 1:27 tells of the Briatic creation of humanity by Elohim, and 2:7 the Yetziratic formation by Y.H.V.H. Elohim. (We haven't even reached the "making" or Assiah level yet.)
Yes, Adam was made from adamah as Av' said. Both of these come from the same triliteral root (the first of the two roots spelled ADM). Adam was made from adamah, "the adam thing." An identical Arabic word, by the way, means "skin," and then "smear" (as in "spread over the surface" - what the skin does to the body). From the basic meaning, it also means "land, territory, country."
BTW, Adam was made from this mudpie by Y.H.V.H. Elohim breathing the living neshamah into the nostrils so that Adam became a nephesh.
"That suggests another interpretation of the Elohim creating Adam “in Her Image”: in the same way that Adam was made by the Divine Creator, Adam is “a maker of things”."
Interesting... but remember that Elohim was creator (-> Briah) which is a different word from maker (-> Assiah).
The curse in 3:17 is against "the ground," i.e., ha-adamah. In 3:19 he is told that he will "return to ha-adamah." ("Dust," though, is OPhR.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
First point to note is that this is sometimes referred to as "the second creation story of Adam." The first creation of humanity is in 1:27, where Elohim created ha-Adam (male and female) in Elohim's image.Then we come to a version so different as to seem a different telling of the story, or even a different event. In 2:7 it is not Elohim, but Y.H.V.H. Elohim that is doing the task; and it is not creation (b'ra) for formation (yetzer) that occurs. The simplest (but not only) explanation is that 1:27 tells of the Briatic creation of humanity by Elohim, and 2:7 the Yetziratic formation by Y.H.V.H. Elohim. (We haven't even reached the "making" or Assiah level yet.)"
Questions:
-
Does the male/female aspect of Adam in the first creation story correspond to the active and passive aspects of Spirit - i.e. the First Adam was pure spirit without a physical body and this pure spirit was tempted by the serpent in the Garden?
-
Does the second creation story imply that Second Adam developed a physical body whereupon aging and death entered the world?
-
What do you mean by the comment "We haven't even reached the "making" or Assiah level yet"?
-
Does Adam Qadmon correspond to the first creation story and where does the concept of tzim-tzum and Tikkun Olam fit into all this?
Thanks for feedback.
-
-
@he atlas itch said
"1. Does the male/female aspect of Adam in the first creation story correspond to the active and passive aspects of Spirit - i.e. the First Adam was pure spirit without a physical body and this pure spirit was tempted by the serpent in the Garden? "
The word adam just means humanity. (Onoy later did it become a male human's name.) Humanity is inherently created "male and female." But, separate from that, yes, I do read the creation story as first a Briatic and then a Yetziratic formation, subsequently incarnated in flesh when they wrapped themselves in skins.
"2. Does the second creation story imply that Second Adam developed a physical body whereupon aging and death entered the world?"
See above. Also remember that the consequences you ask about didn't accrue until expulsion from Eden.
"3. What do you mean by the comment "We haven't even reached the "making" or Assiah level yet"? "
I mean it doesn't occur in either of the two stories quoted above. (See above.) I also pointedly used "making," the translation of the root of Assiah, in contrast to "forming" (= Yetzirah) and "creating" (= Briah).
"4. Does Adam Qadmon correspond to the first creation story and where does the concept of tzim-tzum and Tikkun Olam fit into all this? "
I don't answer Luria-based questions.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@he atlas itch said
"1. Does the male/female aspect of Adam in the first creation story correspond to the active and passive aspects of Spirit - i.e. the First Adam was pure spirit without a physical body and this pure spirit was tempted by the serpent in the Garden? "The word adam just means humanity. (Onoy later did it become a male human's name.) Humanity is inherently created "male and female." But, separate from that, yes, I do read the creation story as first a Briatic and then a Yetziratic formation, subsequently incarnated in flesh when they wrapped themselves in skins.
"2. Does the second creation story imply that Second Adam developed a physical body whereupon aging and death entered the world?"
See above. Also remember that the consequences you ask about didn't accrue until expulsion from Eden.
"3. What do you mean by the comment "We haven't even reached the "making" or Assiah level yet"? "
"I mean it doesn't occur in either of the two stories quoted above. (See above.) I also pointedly used "making," the translation of the root of Assiah, in contrast to "forming" (= Yetzirah) and "creating" (= Briah).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The word adam just means humanity. (Only later did it become a male human's name.) Humanity is inherently created "male and female." But, separate from that, yes, I do read the creation story as first a Briatic and then a Yetziratic formation, subsequently incarnated in flesh when they wrapped themselves in skins"
That’s interesting. It suggests the second creation story of Yetziratic formation and subsequent incarnation in flesh and wrapping of bodies in skin = restriction of spirit. Curiously it is only in the second creation story that Adam “became a living soul”. That suggests the consciousness of First Adam was identical to an animal or elemental.
I had always assumed First Adam had a physical body but was unaware of such fact. In other words, following the second creation story and upon eating from the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve fell from the Supernals into duality (alienation from God) and became ashamed of their nakedness. This is when the first recorded event of animal sacrifice – not for eating, but for symbolic/totemic purposes - occurs in Genesis. Strangely it is God, not Adam, who performs the first sacrifice and clothes Adam and Eve in the “skins of the animal”. I trace the mythical origins of civilization back to this first act of sacrifice in the Garden (cf. the work of Rene Girard).
Whether “skins” refer to human skin covering our bodies or animal skins clothing our nakedness, the fall of Adam may be summarized as Restriction. The “skins” forbid us from looking at the obvious answer – that there is something hidden and mysterious about the physical body.
-
@he atlas itch said
"Curiously it is only in the second creation story that Adam “became a living soul”."
Specifically, he becomes a nephesh. That's totally appropriate for a Yetziratic formation.
"That suggests the consciousness of First Adam was identical to an animal or elemental."
No - a higher level. Elementals are relatively medium-to-low level Yetzirah. The first creation - which was a creation - was Briatic. Were this story to be taken literally (and taken seriously) it would totally support a world view of humanity having a special, distinctive place outside that of all the animals, for, in this story, humanity was never an animal - was never a lower life form - but was created from the "higher" (= deeper) layers outward, first being seen in Briah, then Yetzirah, then wrapped in skin as Assiah. (I don't adopt this world view, I just observe that it's what the text infers.)
"Strangely it is God, not Adam, who performs the first sacrifice and clothes Adam and Eve in the “skins of the animal”."
I think you're missing the point here. Clothing the Yetziratic (tghat is, "astral") beings in skins means giving them physical bodies for the first time.
"Whether “skins” refer to human skin covering our bodies or animal skins clothing our nakedness, the fall of Adam may be summarized as Restriction. The “skins” forbid us from looking at the obvious answer – that there is something hidden and mysterious about the physical body."
The Fall is simply the story of the emergence of self-conscious mind (i.e., acquiring knowledge) and,if Eden be taken as primordially supernal, stepping "below the Abyss." (One could, of course, develop this "from the bottom up" instead of "from the top down," and I would prefer it; but that's not how this particular story goes, since, in it, humanity was first Briatic, and then Yetziratic.)
The potential of development, tbhough, is upward: They took one step by "eating of knowledge," acquiring a Ruach. The next step would have been for them to have "partaken of the Tree of Life," i.e., followed the coded Path of Initiation, and become "like" gods. They were thrown out before they had the chance; but Y.H.V.H. Elohim nonetheless marked the way back and set signs to show the way to the Tree of Life.
-
"Were I doing this operation - first, I would never speak of invoking Ghob. He's Yetziratc. You evoke him. He's of a lower level than you are. Second, the hierachy I would use for Earth would be:
ATZILUTH: Adonai
BRIAH: Uriel
YETZIRAH:
-- Ruler: Kerub
-- Angel: Phorlakh
-- King: Ghob"So where does Evocation stop and Invocation begin? It seems weird to evoke an angel.