true names of God(s), Demons etc

[Nungali]

17 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

 

 

?

[Cobie]

.

Edited August 8 by Cobie

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Cobie said:

‘fire’ is the “soul” that’s inside all of us.

”‘soul”, ruach/pneuma, wind, spirit, fire - they all refer to the same “vivifying essence”

 

Wind and fire refer to the same vivifying essence?  Vivifying?  Are you sure?  Rev 21:8?

For me?  Vivifying essence is Nefesh which is in the blood, Lev 17:11.

And animals have ruach.  That's one of the most important over-looked details in the Noah's ark story.  

 

The human soul, according to Hebrew scripture has 5 co-equal, co-existing, aspects, or, faces.  

1. nefesh
2. ruach
3. neshama
4. chayyah
5. y'chidah

Animals have nefesh, and ruach.

 

The neshama, chayyah, and y'chidah are exclusively human.  The neshama is what sinks and rises.  In a way, that could be a "water" quality / attribute / aspect.  It's in the middle.  Heavens <<>> Water <<>> Earth.  Also it's the only aspect which possesses the hebrew letter "mem" which is iconography representing a vessel which is actively pouring.  And, the neshama was bestowed on humanity in an action which might include moisture.  Maybe.   I'm not sure.

 

3 hours ago, Cobie said:

water refers to the body (John 3:5-8).

 

I disagree.  The body is not water.  That's verse 6.

 

3 hours ago, Cobie said:

(the fire of spirit’; Hebrews 12:29; Pentecostal flames

 

Hebrews 12:29:  Our god is a consuming fire. https://biblehub.com/greek/2654.htm

 

That's the opposite of vivifying.  But it matches Rev 21:8 and Matthew 3:11.  In Rev 21 the fire is the second death for the sinner.  In Matthew 3:11 the fire is destroying the sin.

 

In Hebrew, as it exists in the human soul it's called "netzach" which best translates to English as "conquering".  

In Hebrew, as it exists in the heavens it's called "kahvohd" which translates to "glory".

 

Edited August 8 by Daniel

[Daniel]

22 hours ago, snowymountains said:

To selectively combine

 

Selectively combine?   Hm.  That's not what I had in mind.  Accept = All are accepted.  Reject = All are rejected. "VS" is an exclusive or.  "XOR".  The opposite is Not-XOR.

 

 

 

22 hours ago, snowymountains said:

... but this would require a theology scholar who is happy to take some heat from religious authorities. Religious authority implies a canon, and anything outside the canon not being reviewed for theological questions.

There are scholars like this of course, I'm just not aware of anyone who also happened to work on this question.

 

It's clearest in Proverbs ( in the original language ).  It's also in Gen 1, but, it's a lot less obvious.  King Solomon is remembered for many things which are actually only 1 thing.  It looks like many, but, it's not.  He followed in his father's footsteps.  King David is also remembered for many things, which are actually only 1 thing.  Many-and-one simultaneously. 

 

Question:  What is a proverb?  

Answer:  It's one general statement which includes many-many particular examples.

 

Honestly, isn't that what's happening in the DDJ?

 

Because of this, I question the popular ( ? ) theory among many that Jesus had contact with eastern schools of thought.  Instead, I think he had a book of King Solomon's proverbs.  One can, more or less, do the same thing with either book and produce the same outcome even though the content is very different.

 

22 hours ago, snowymountains said:

There a lot of other options, I have to say this is a topic that's on my todo list for 2 years now and still haven't managed to get it  started.

Another option is that Enoch the person became overtaken by Metatron's Archetype and in a sense became one with Metatron.

But a lot more options exist.

 

I hear you.  Understood.

 

22 hours ago, snowymountains said:

A lot could be missing.

 

Bingo.

 

22 hours ago, snowymountains said:

It could also be that Metatron is God or - if ones wants to go into entities stemming from a Monad - that Metatron and the Devil form a syzygy, Metatron is an aeon that's directly aware of God and the Devil is another aeon and lots of other options.

Even more options appear if one wishes to distinguish between a creator God and the Godhead, etc etc.

 

Ah.  Point of clarification:  Metatron gets punished by the angels for sitting in the chair of the All-Mighty.

 

 

Maybe this will help?  What if there is a type of angel which is serving the function of a chariot?  If so, Enoch is riding in the "chariot" called "Metatron".  It's mercavah mysticsm, the oldest of the original and authentic forms of Jewish mysticism.  It's the most closely aligned to ... drumroll ... shamanism.

 

 

Edited August 8 by Daniel

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

Selectively combine?   Hm.  That's not what I had in mind.  Accept = All are accepted.  Reject = All are rejected. "VS" is an exclusive or.  "XOR".  The opposite is Not-XOR.

 

 

The difficulty with this approach is that it puts all sources on equal footing for all topics. Typically a source/scripture will have an initial text that's been edited by other authors over the centuries who added or subtracted or modified bits and pieces.

Knowing which piece came from which period and a subsection's value for answering a certain question is not straightforward.

As this requires certain skill which I don't have, I tend to rely on scholars for theological analysis on these sort of questions. Sometimes a good piece of theological analysis is available, sometimes it isn't.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

It's clearest in Proverbs ( in the original language ).  It's also in Gen 1, but, it's a lot less obvious.  King Solomon is remembered for many things which are actually only 1 thing.  It looks like many, but, it's not.  He followed in his father's footsteps.  King David is also remembered for many things, which are actually only 1 thing.  Many-and-one simultaneously. 

 

Question:  What is a proverb?  

Answer:  It's one general statement which includes many-many particular examples.

 

Honestly, isn't that what's happening in the DDJ?

 

Thanks ! I will definitely spend time going through proverbs and Gen 1 for cues on this ( atm on holiday with limited access to internet).

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Because of this, I question the popular ( ? ) theory among many that Jesus had contact with eastern schools of thought.  Instead, I think he had a book of King Solomon's proverbs.  One can, more or less, do the same thing with either book and produce the same outcome even though the content is very different.

 

I don't believe in these theories either. Jesus had his own tradition, plus, for other influences, the Egyptian and Greek traditions were right next door. He had plenty to become in contact with right in his very own "neighborhood".

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Maybe this will help?  What if there is a type of angel which is serving the function of a chariot?  If so, Enoch is riding in the "chariot" called "Metatron".  It's mercavah mysticsm, the oldest of the original and authentic forms of Jewish mysticism.  It's the most closely aligned to ... drumroll ... shamanism.

 

 

 

This makes sense, in a lot of ways.

Did Moses by any chance practice mercavah mysticism?

Moses, in my own subjective view of him, does sound close to a Shaman.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

 

 

 

Thanks, this is very useful to see.

I'm aware Metatron likes to leave it in the air that he might be God ( more likes to show he's very high up without "clarification" he's not the "highest" entity - not sure which is the best way to phrase this accurately ), which fits with what you cite , of him receiving 60 lashes for sitting on God's throne.

 

 

I wonder then if Enoch did meet God or an avatar of Metatron when he transcended...

Edited August 8 by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

15 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

That's the right individual.  You're in the right story, at least.  For pronunciation, the emphasis is on the middle syllable.  y'HOshua.  After that, it's a long "u" sound.  oo.  In english, it's like a shoe.. uh.  ...shoe-uh.

 

🙏👍

[snowymountains]

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Oh, well then  !

 

I doubt you will find better than this ;

 

https://www.boandbon.com/

 

I have it in my library 😎

[Daniel]

50 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

I have it in my library 😎

 

Did you like it?

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

The difficulty with this approach ...

 

... is knowing when to use it and when to avoid it.

[snowymountains]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

Did you like it?

 

I haven't read all of it, what I had read was good, though I also recall scholars being critical of some of the content.

So it's one of those books which I'm happy to recommend as long as content is taken with a grain of salt.

 

This book is part of another project, I'm trying to figure how much of Tibetan practices are of Shamanic origin, but let's leave that for another thread 🧵 ( fyi I haven't concluded in either way being/not-being of shamanic origin )

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

Did Moses by any chance practice mercavah mysticism?

 

No.  

 

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

Moses, in my own subjective view of him, does sound close to a Shaman

 

I trust your judgement, but, I'm curious.  Why do you think so?

 

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I trust your judgement, but, I'm curious.  Why do you think so?

 

 

The description of Moses' story sounds a lot like someone who was journeying via daydreaming ( as opposed to having his eyed closed ), it's a hunch of course, I can't objectively prove it, nor is the source of this particular belief experiental.

I don't mean it as Moses being part of an unbroken chain of Shamanic lineage, more like journeying, like how shamans used to, and meeting with an entity/archetype/God while journeying.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

Metatron likes...

 

If "Metatron" is a "chariot" and Enoch is driving the chariot, then it's Enoch's inclination, disposition, affinities, and aversions.  Metatron doesn't "like" anything.

 

Enoch is remembered not only as the one who "ascended" without experiencing death.  ( "Ascended" is in quotes because it's not a literal ascension ).  Enoch is remembered in contrast to the others of that age / era.  It's this sharp contrast which is producing clarity on the subject matter.  It's very much like photography.  Increasing contrast results in clarity.  Lacking contrast, the image is washed-out.  That's the phenomena you were describing before. 

 

Metatron could be almost anything, if, simultaneously some concepts are selectively included and some concepts are selectively excluded.  But that's not the technique.  The technique applies a valence, then includes all, both accepting and rejecting, simultaneously.  The valence permits simultaneity in the form of sharp contrast.  The sharp contrast requires both extremes.  In this way, accepting and rejecting are united, and equivalent.

 

Edited August 8 by Daniel

[Daniel]

10 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

The description of Moses' story sounds a lot like someone who was journeying via daydreaming ( as opposed to having his eyed closed ), it's a hunch of course, I can't objectively prove it, nor is the source of this particular belief experiental.

I don't mean it as Moses being part of an unbroken chain of Shamanic lineage, more like journeying, like how shamans used to, and meeting with an entity/archetype/God while journeying.

 

Aha!  Thank you.  Shamanism is  journeying?  That's its essential defining characteristic which distinguishes it from other paths?

 

The book about Tibetan shamanism?  Were they journeying?

 

Edited August 8 by Daniel

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

If "Metatron" is a "chariot" and Enoch is driving the chariot, then it's Enoch's inclination, disposition, affinities, and aversions.  Metatron doesn't "like" anything.

 

Enoch is remembered not only as the one who "ascended" without experiencing death.  ( "Ascended" is in quotes because it's not a literal ascension ).  Enoch is remembered in contrast to the others of that age / era.  It's this sharp contrast which is producing clarity on the subject matter.  It's very much like photography.  Increasing contrast results in clarity.  Lacking contrast, the image is washed-out.  That's the phenomena you were describing before. 

 

Metatron could be almost anything, if, simultaneously some concepts are selectively included and done concepts are selectively excluded.  But that's not the technique.  The technique applies a valence, then includes all both accepting and rejecting, simultaneously.  The valence permits simultaneity in the form of sharp contrast.  The sharp contrast requires both extremes.  In this way, accepting and rejecting are united, and equivalent.

 

Someone may also reject "contact" with Metatron though, instead of accepting his extremes, it's a choice 

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

Someone may also reject "contact" with Metatron though, instead of accepting his extremes, it's a choice 

 

I'm not arguing.  I'm zooming out.  Just like a camera.  And I'm increasing the contrast for the purpose of producing clarity.

 

What is the opposite of "Metatron"?

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Aha!  Thank you.  Shamanism is  journeying?  That's its essential defining characteristic which distinguishes it from other paths?

 

Well, what else is common, the cosmology isn't. Western neo-shamanism uses a cosmology of upper/middle/lower worlds, which some tribes used but others didn't ( eg in some cultures, they only journey to the skies ). Others have a pristine lower world, others a hellish. Others use drums others not. Others use psychedelics, others not.

 

The only common denominator is the journeying practice .

Journeying was also a theme in some of the later religions btw, where an oracle or a priest was the one who did the journeying.

[snowymountains]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

I'm not arguing.  I'm zooming out.  Just like a camera.  And I'm increasing the contrast for the purpose of producing clarity.

 

What is the opposite of "Metatron"?

 

Good question. The honest answer is I don't know and would be interested to hear your answer to this question.

 

What I am aware of is that Metatron has both a "glorious and warm" side and a "dark and trickster" one, so in a sense is both, thus it's difficult to see an opposite.

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

what else is common

 

In my mind, and I will welcome being corrected, the defining characteristic of the shaman is indwelling of spirit.

 

The connection to journeying is that the isolation and diversity of experiences encourages, greatly, the likelihood that the traveler encounters a spirit "like" their own.  ( "like" is in quotes because it includes both types of similarity:  direct correspondence and inverse complimentary, both ).

[snowymountains]

7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

In my mind, and I will welcome being corrected, the defining characteristic of the shaman is indwelling of spirit.

 

The connection to journeying is that the isolation and diversity of experiences encourages, greatly, the likelihood that the traveler encounters a spirit "like" their own.  ( "like" is in quotes because it includes both types of similarity:  direct correspondence and inverse complimentary, both ).

 

Yes, I see the two as being equivalent in practical terms. Someone who journeys will eventually meet archetypes or spirits if you prefer, after eg meeting introjections.

 

I can't make any general claims on the similarity between them and what they'll meet, they may meet lots of stuff, but one will also meet whatever next archetype is "next in line" in their path of individuation.

Edited August 8 by snowymountains

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Good question. The honest answer is I don't know and would be interested to hear your answer to this question.

 

What I am aware of is that Metatron has both a "glorious and warm" side and a "dark and trickster" one, so in a sense is both, thus it's difficult to see an opposite.

 

The opposite of Metatron is Shechinah.  Imagine a chariot.  It rolls forward ( Metatron ).  It rolls backward ( Shechinah ).  It's one chariot.  But it looks very-very different depending on the point of view of the observer.  

 

My favorite analogy for this?  Geometry.  A cone.  Imagine that you're standing on earth looking up.  Above you is an enormous cone pointing down.  From your vantage it looks like a point.  Now, shift your vantage to the heavens.  Now, look down on the cone.  Instead of a point, you're looking at an enormous open circle.  It's still the same cone.  Nothing has changed about it.  It's the same with Metatron-and-Shechinah.

 

Now.  You're not wrong about the trickster. There is a trickster in this construct.  The trickster is "Nachash".  The silvery, forked tongued, serpent, the most cunning of all the "beasts of the field" ( Gen 3:1 ). 

 

The opposite of Metatron is Shechinah.  They are a conjoined pair, a unity:  Metatron-and-Shechinah, the chariot.

 

What's the opposite of a chariot?

[snowymountains]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

The opposite of Metatron is Shechinah.  Imagine a chariot.  It rolls forward ( Metatron ).  It rolls backward ( Shechinah ).  It's one chariot.  But it looks very-very different depending on the point of view of the observer.  

 

My favorite analogy for this?  Geometry.  A cone.  Imagine that you're standing on earth looking up.  Above you is an enormous cone pointing down.  From your vantage it looks like a point.  Now, shift your vantage to the heavens.  Now, look down on the cone.  Instead of a point, you're looking at an enormous open circle.  It's still the same cone.  Nothing has changed about it.  It's the same with Metatron-and-Shechinah.

 

Now.  You're not wrong about the trickster. There is a trickster in this construct.  The trickster is "Nachash".  The silvery, forked tongued, serpent, the most cunning of all the "beasts of the field" ( Gen 3:1 ). 

 

The opposite of Metatron is Shechinah.  They are a conjoined pair, a unity:  Metatron-and-Shechinah, the chariot.

 

What's the opposite of a chariot?

 

So is the welcoming side appearing to those who meet him and the other side/Shechinah appears to those who reject contact with him/move away from him?

 

How does Nachash relate to Metatron-and-Shechinah ?

 

I can only guess on the opposite of a chariot, but I'd gather not travelling/journeying, remaining grounded on Earth.

Edited August 8 by snowymountains

[Daniel]

53 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Yes, I see the two as being equivalent in practical terms. Someone who journeys will eventually meet archetypes or spirits if you prefer, after eg meeting introjections.

 

I can't make any general claims on the similarity between them and what they'll meet, they may meet lots of stuff, but one will also meet whatever next archetype is "next in line" in their path of individuation.

 

If the spirit which is encountered is discordant ( not harmonious ) with the traveler then it is almost automatically rejected.  On the other hand, if the spirit resonates ( vibration word choice intended ) then the spirit is accepted by the traveler.  The longer the journey, the more likely the traveler will encounter spirits which resonate.  The more isolated the traveler is, the more introspective is their journeying.  The introspection encourages a sensitivity to noticing the sensations of resonance and discord within the traveler's heart-and-mind. 

 

Important note:  However, again, it's important to include the complimentary ( inverse ) of the resonating spirit as readily assimilated into the heart-and-mind of the traveler.  Even though the this spirit is opposite of the natural inclination, disposition, affinities, and aversions of the traveler, their heart-and-mind will attach very easily to these spirits because that's how the heart-and-mind operate.  The opposite compliment defines the subject.  Cognitive association requires both extremes.  The traveler who is not aware of this natural consequence of their journeying may very well find themselves receiving precisely the opposite of their intentions, their true will.  If that happens, and it often does, it's a big problem.

 

This is why the primitive persistence hunter ( the scout / stalker ) was on the shamanic path.  If they were naturally inclined towards indwelling animal, plant, water, fire, spirits, they had a natural survival advantage as well as a natural advantage for bringing nourishment to the tribe.  It was dangerous work, the scout was sent alone on their quest initially as a practical matter.  Too many never returned from their journeying.  The tribe was cautious and careful limiting who and how many would be sent into the unknown.  However, what they discovered was, the isolation naturally increases the odds for success.  And that is the beginning of shamanism,  the vision quest, or walk-about.

 

Edited August 8 by Daniel

[Daniel]

6 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

So is the welcoming side appearing to those who meet him and the other side/Shechinah appears to those who reject contact with him/move away from him?

 

No.

 

7 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

How does Nachash relate to Metatron-and-Shechinah ?

 

The chariot rolls in an orderly and predictable manner.  Nachash is the opposite of this.  But, care should be taken with this, because, the opposite of order is not always disorder.  The opposite of order is sometimes orderly sometimes not with no discernable pattern.  The opposite of order is oblivion or confusion.

 

Once this is clearly seen, the dichotomy, the sharp contrast, between that which is orderly and its opposite another unity is produced.  This pairing is also united!  Just like Metatron-and-Shechinah, just like heart-and-mind, just like terror-and-awe. Just like life-and-death.  Just like blessing-and-curse.  There's one and only one exception:  The Source.

[snowymountains]

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

The chariot rolls in an orderly and predictable manner.  Nachash is the opposite of this.  But, care should be taken with this, because, the opposite of order is not always disorder.  The opposite of order is sometimes orderly sometimes not with no discernable pattern.  The opposite of order is oblivion or confusion.

 

Once this is clearly seen, the dichotomy, the sharp contrast, between that which is orderly and its opposite another unity is produced.  This pairing is also united!  Just like Metatron-and-Shechinah, just like heart-and-mind, just like terror-and-awe. Just like life-and-death.  Just like blessing-and-curse.  There's one and only one exception:  The Source.

 

Does any scripture cite or imply that Nachash may pretend to be Metatron, at least during first contact?

 

Also how does Shechinah differ from Metatron, other than the direction of the chariot.