BrotherButterball wrote:Charles/Raum,
Thank you for stating your opinion. In my original posting I stated that I believed the beings from the Mystic Grimoire and the NAP books are/were the same beings.
I was not speaking to or against that possibility. WIthout ever having seen the Mystic Grimoire, I would not say the same. I would not say anything about it, as I have no experience of it.
In my work with these two books I too have evoked angels and demons thousands of times. I purposely understated my experiences regarding same.
Yes, you stated you did so thousands of times, I just followed suit to let you know I was not speaking an untested theory. It was not a pissing contest.
I suspect that your purpose in these postings is to establish some sort of supremacy regarding your angelic knowledge. Go ahead and knock yourself out.
Not at all. I was discounting the notion that the name meanings offered by JohnBlend are inconsistent with actual words that were suggested. I see these alot especially online or in books by people who do not study biblical or proto-biblical languages. It was to that point I was replying. It is not about supremacy, it is about sharing. If someone says a name means something, it should pass a linguistic test, and those do not.
My fundamental approach to magic is simple, words have power and names are words. If a name means something, as it should if appointed, it should be cognate to the function of the being. To this end, I have studied the very essence of linguistics. I have done so since my seventh grade year, some 24 years ago. This was when I first learned how the name of Raphael is derived from the Torah. Even before then, I was interested but how it fit with magic really solidified itself in my late teens. This very premise is essential to Angel Magic, in its oldest forms, and so maybe , just maybe it is a good tenet to practice.
I am not claiming and nowhere have I claimed to know it all.
Your studies in the etymology of words are very helpful.
It is not about if I know it all. It is not about if you know it all. It is about how certain one's working assumptions are and if they are confident enough to entertain speculation and criticism. I know mine are. All magic is based on tenets, "working assumptions" in mathematics. I ironed mine out, and they in general are sound principals found in most magic. My "school" is yellow. It is not about establishing supremacy. My view is generally, lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. - all of which is determined by the compentency one has with the material, or the latent comprehension. I do not care if I am in charge, I want the BEST person for the job in charge. There is no "I" besides an ever growing body of knowledge and experience.
However I believe that I know these two grimoires better than most and better than you.
I would not doubt that, having that I have not even seen one of them, and heard of both of them this year. My first post said nothing of the book. It was about specific angels. Also, I do not believe the work of ANY one magician, or all in accord is beyond error. I believe the statement "all prophets are true, save that they understand a little." is VERY applicable.
However, I'd wager I may understand them in context you do not, and perhaps even Geof Gray-Cobb did not. One of receiving a Qabala, one of origins of Angel Magic, and one of being proficient in biblical and proto-lingusitics. This doesn't mean other views are not valuable or people do not have their own perspectives, but in general a book with Sanskrit and Hebrew is probabaly more transparent to someone who is familiar with those languages.
These books by Geof Gray Cobb have little to nothing to do with Enochian magic.
I never said they did. I simply was stating they are a part of my considerable experience.
Now I have enough drama in my life right now and do not need more with pissing contests regarding the spelling of angelic names and words.
I did not offer or start a pissing contest. Not sure why you take this so personally, actually.
Thank you for playing Sherlock Holmes.
Tim
REPLY 1, typical of the kind of replies I would like from people when I may offend them.
I am not "playing" - I am not pretending. I do hard research. A person doing 200 pushups and practicing rifle drills with a 12 lb bar is not "playing" soldier. This is very serious to me. I study and practice some three to seven hours a day. It is not because I am playing, it is because this is part of my passion for being alive, and for me a huge part of that passion is language. Language allows for reason in magic - it constitutes one large aspect of "To Know."
REPLY 2, typical of the kind of replies I get when people get offended.
You are laughable, clearly you mean I am not serious and I hate you. Sherlock Holmes did not play, well maybe the violin, but I do not. So clearly, you are making fun of me for not playing the violin! Not everyone who can fingure things out needs to play the violin and works for scotland yard. I'll have you know the Scots are not all bad. They made schotch whiskey and golf.
-----
Until after the Dark Ages subsided, most magicians were not using languages they did not understand. That was the product of millions of deaths following the redaction of cultures into kingdoms as Rome, the Empire not the City, fell. Before that, many lost their culture as it was forcibly integrated and subdued under Roman, not Italian, rule.
It's not like Rome was the only one to do this, or all of Rome is Italy. but it is sort of sad that I have to mention that.
----
BTW- I do not hate Italy, Rome, Italia, or any of the rest. If you found what I said laughable, you did not read what I intended. For one, Rome and Italy are not the same. What I do not understand is why that was brought up here in this thread.