November 25, 2006 at 12:43 am #19385
Anyone have any first hand (or second hand) info on Michael Morgan. I know he wrote the Emerald Covenant (which I recently read) and has a website (which is down) but that’s all I know.
I wonder if anyone’s had any interactions with him lately.
Thanks.November 25, 2006 at 4:58 am #19386
He just published a book a few weeks ago called The Adventures of God, which details the struggle (and weaknesses) of God in dealing with older and more powerful creators than Itself that are organized around “dominion” or power/control. The book, in my opinion, is rather uneven in its mix of mythic personification of these Gods and esoteric theory, but presents some pretty interesting ideas.
So what religions call God is just the local Prime Creator, but one that is focused on free will and unconditional love, unlike the older Gods, which he calls Djinns. Ultimately it is these Djinns that are responsible for amplifying the suffering on Earth that ensured after the Fall of aspects of God into slower vibrating physical planes. The Djinns want God’s free will experiment to fail, as it undermines their way of being, based on control and hierarchy. The Djinns are the ones that polarized Lucifer, an aspect of God, to doubt God.
So if you want to read someone’s version of the battle in heaven, you’ll enjoy this. But disappointingly thin on the function of the life force in this battle.
mNovember 25, 2006 at 10:18 am #19388
The Djinn have a positive function in creation. This is gnostic anti-earthness at work again. The older gods also have an important function.
Not having been able to finish an essay I’m trying to write on this subject, I just wanted to say a couple of things for people to chew on about the nature of ‘demons’, ‘gods’, whatever… there has been disinformation on this subject for far too long. This is what caused the idea of the ‘Luciferian mistake’ as Michael calls it, which is a divisive duality that has plagued the West ever since the 1st centuries ‘AD’, and which has contributed a great deal to the lack of earth-centredness in our spiritual culture in this hemisphere.
It’s been half a century since the cultural revolution in China, but people have not forgotten how the country was embroiled in unspeakable destruction – for members of this site I’m sure I don’t have to retail how they treated Taoist temples. I bring this up because the behaviour of the Red Guard at that time was absolutely the same as the behaviour of the Christians, when they first appeared.
In 386 the orator Libanius appealed to the Emperor to restrain them:
“They [the monks] are spreading out like torrents across the countryside; and in ruining the temples, they are also ruining the countryside itself at one and the same time. For to snatch from a region the temple which protects it is like tearing out its eye, killing it, annihilating it.”
The tide of annihilation could not in the end be stemmed, but there was an old guard of wisdom who kept up the pagan stream for a while before it at last went under – the Platonic lineage. I have been investigating a man named Iamblichus, who was one of these Platonists. We don’t know his name much now, and even until recently he was being more or less completely ignored by scholars, but at the time he lived he was called the ‘benefactor of the entire world’.
The reason he has been ignored until recently is that, unlike the other Greeks, he saw ritual and magic as central to philosophy and wisdom. This has made him beneath the dignity of our modern scholars to investigate.
He had arguments with other Platonists who insisted that a more theoretical approach alone was sufficient. For example, he excoriated a fellow-Platonist, Porphyry, who had achieved ‘Henosis’ (what would be called in this site ‘union with the Tao’) but who was still subject to bouts of depression; Iamblichus accused him of ignoring the reality of material existence.
According to Iamblichus, there was a hierarhcy in nature, *all* of which had to be respected. Not only the One and All, but the many gods, the angels, the heroes (which is a whole separate and very interesting subject) – and, importantly for the present discussion, daimons (what Morgan is calling Djinn), had to be worked with and understood. Simply to dismiss them was to dismiss the earth itself.
Thus one could have union with ‘God’ and still not be a true part of nature, which was the reason for Porphyry’s depression – his personal material existence had no meaning. I relate this strongly to the distinction Michael makes between ‘head enlightenment’ and ‘whole-body enlightenment’.
The methods of Iamblichus were Western and descended from the Greek mysteries and Egyptian religion. They involved western means as such – the use of herbs, theurgic rituals, magic, and so forth, as well as meditation. But interestingly, Iamblichus (like people on this site) treated *immortality* as the goal of spiritual development – and his definition of immortality was VERY VERY SIMILAR to Michael Winn’s.
Gregory Shaw describes the meaning Iamblichus gave to the word ‘Immortality’ in his book ‘Theurgy and the Soul’. This is a purely academic work really, so apologies if the language is a touch stilted, but I rejoice that an academic can write these things.
By means of appropriate rites the theurgist directed the powers of his particular soul (mikros kosmos) into alignment with the powers of the World Soul, which gave him direct participation in the “whole”. He became a theios aner, universal and divine yet particular and mortal; in somatic terms this was the result of having filled the measures of his immortal augoeides soma, the soul’s “star body”…
The doctrine of the “soul vehicle” (ochema) in the Platonic tradition is essential… Referred to by Iamblichus as a vehicle or breath (pneuma), the perfection of this aetheric and luminous body effected the soul’s immortalization…
To the degree that a theurgist was divinized and assimilated to the Demiurge he necessarily shared the benign interest of the Demiurge in generated life, including his own. Any aversion he may have felt toward his mortal existence was therefore overcome by his experience of the “whole”, and his physical body became the nexus through which he expressed this divine benevolence…. In his person, he preserved a continuity between the “whole” and its “parts”, between the gods and man.
Iamblichus specifically faults the view of those who defined catharsis [spiritual progression – NN] as a withdrawal from matter. He says: “Some give greater value to freedom from material bonds, liberation from mortality, release from generation and similar *lesser goals* of catharsis.” The greater goals that followed were… unification with the creative cause, the demiurgic acitivity of joining parts of wholes, and the subsequent reinvestment of parts with the vitality of their universal sources….
By entering into the community of the gods as one of its bodies of light, the embodied soul was no longer alienated by matter – nor passionately drawn to it.
Notice here the use of the word 'demiurge'; Christian Gnosticism uses this word and that is where most who now know it will know it from.
The Gnostics were early Christians and they contrasted the the 'evil demiurge' responsible for the creation of matter with the 'Good God' who lay outside of it. They created a separation, a duality, which influenced many Platonists but by which Iamblichus refused to be tempted. To him nature and earth were still paramount, the very index of spiritual development. The daimons were important functionaries in creation, moving their individual pieces of it as they must; neither they nor the material world they made should be ignored – on the contrary, the greater one's enlightenment the more one would celebrate and parttake of it.
The idea of the Demiurge as a good being would have been incomprehensible to the Gnostics; the idea of daimons as positive likewise; the idea of nature and the body as good likewise.
Iamblichus may have been hailed as a saviour, but the gnostic doctrine of matter-as-evil won out. It just won, and it eradicated all that had come before. The temples were burned, and the connection of spirituality with earthly things, with daimons, spirits-of-place, and so forth, came to be seen in the west either as pathetic supersition (when it was deemed harmless) or else as evil and a matter for being burned at the stake (when it empowered the individual against the political church hierarchy).
All earth-based spiritualities went into hiding. Natural magic was anathema. Daimons became demons, to be shunned. The lesser goals of catharsis were pursued, the greater forgotten. One may find in Iamblichus' list of 'lesser' cathartic goals all the aims of conventional Buddhism, for example. Buddhism, like Islam and Christianity, is a revisionist religion, designed to turn people away from living with nature. That the way might *follow* nature, as Taoists feel, is to such systems abhorrent. There is accordingly, in the eyes of such religions, no good reason for a human being to be born or to exist. The best that can be done is to correct the mistake.
All this is in the past. The old gods and demons are returning – I am not the only one to think so, and they are not at all as political propaganda has led us to believe. The Djinns are amongst them. They do not in the least wish free will to fail – they do not have the power to do so, not the ones I have met. It is *human* abuse of contact with them that led to the problems of power and dominion with which they have become associated – for humans are more powerful than demons and always have been.
The perpetuation of the worldview in which nature, daimons, the body, sex, and the material dimension are seen as evils which must be escaped is something that anyone who believes in being both human and happy should condemn. Our own illusions are all we must escape. As Michael Winn says, the Life Force gives us what we ask of it. If we ask for this material dimension to be a barren and hopeless prison which we must exploit to survive whilst we find a way to escape it, that is what it will surely become. But we don't have to believe this. Looking at the news any day of the week surely gives us information as to where such beliefs lead.
Phew! An essay in itself I guess, sorry about that…. Anyhow, hope it provides some food for thought.
Best to all, NNNovember 25, 2006 at 11:39 am #19390November 25, 2006 at 3:57 pm #19392
I gave a thumbnail sketch that left out details relevant to your essay – which is excellent, but possibly mis-directed against Michel Morgan’s new line. He is, however, very Christian and gnostically oriented on some levels, and so some of your criticism may apply.
But the twist in Morgan’s latest thesis is that the local God / Prime Creator of this physical earth and cosmos (not sure how far out that extends, its not made clear) created mortal humans as part of the process of recovering from a gall too fast too far into density that they couldn’t re-expand. This God supports this physical world, and supports sexual coupling and reincarnation as part of the process of re-evolving back up to a more expanded state. This god maintains and supports this physical creation.
The Djinns are described as the major part of Primordial Heaven, who allowed “God” – also a Djinn, but young one and a strange one, with ideas about free will and love – a corner of creation to experiment in as “God” wished. The vast majority of the Djinns were essentially indifferent to God-Djinn creating whatever S/he wanted, as long as it didn’t impinge on their reality/hierarchy/structure.
This is where the anthropomorphizing in Morgan’s book wears a bit thin, and begins to sound like a Star Wars script. Morgan claims ONE of those older Djinns wanted to cause our local God-Djinn to fail, to further his own position with the Ruling council of older Djinns. And thus interfered with God’s creation of physical earth and human evolution, already begun by Lucifer and God.
God goes to war against the older Djinns, and destroys the one djinn who was out to cause him to fail.
A peace in heaven ensues, in which God has to allow the other Djinns equal influence in God’s “free will ” cosmos, otherwise it would not be truly free will.
So its not clear if the daimons N is speaking of are the same Djinns, who don’t want a successful functional earth. But in any case, I agree with the basic premise of N, that a counterforce is what gives movement, and even Morgan posits that the humans who evolve here are HIGHER than the beings who never “fell” into physicality. These aspect of the local God are now resentful and jealous that the “fallen” humans are re-immortalising themselves to a higher level of awareness than those who never “fell”.
I am not defending any story, just clarifying the way it is presented. I don’t know of any way to verify any of this.
mNovember 25, 2006 at 4:16 pm #19394
>>This is where the anthropomorphizing in Morgan’s book wears a bit thin, and begins to sound like a Star Wars script… I don’t know of any way to verify any of this.<<
ha, well exactly. It sounds like a fun read but how does he know all this?? NNNovember 25, 2006 at 5:21 pm #19396
i really dig your essay.
i am curious what you would think of this website:
the primary author there suggests that they way gnosticism is typically described by scholars, etc. is in fact disinformation, largely based in the writings of their opponets (the church). he links gnosticism to pre-christian europrean indigenous traditions and the mystery schools. he suggestions gnosticism is not about a duality of creation, but a epistemological/noetic one. it’s a pretty unusual view.
-CNovember 25, 2006 at 5:35 pm #19398
Just wanted to say that when Iamblichus speaks about the necessity for understanding the whole spectrum of creation, he is not necessarily talking about a counterbalancing ‘evil’ force or whatever.
So as not to call them ‘demons’, Hermetic magicians have found other names for certain entities – eg., Bardon talks of ‘a genius of Mercury’, a ‘a genius of Mars’ or what have you. Each is a part of the spectrum of creation with a certain function.
The plural of ‘genius’ is ‘genii’ which shows the lineage of the word. These are the same kind of genii you find in bottles in Arabic fairytales – they are djinni, the Djinn. When you contact your higher self you contact your genius – a Platonist would say you contact your demon, and not feel uncomfortable with the remark.
These genii/djinni/demons/whatever come in a variety of flavours, not all of which are, shall we say, obviously positive! But some are VERY positive. They aren’t angels and they aren’t gods. They have their own place in the spectrum of creation. But any contact with them was called devil-worship in Christianity.
(This being what *I* mean by Djinn, I must doubt whether it was what Morgan meant by the word. Has an entity told him directly that the name ‘Djinn’ applies? Or has he chosen the word because it sounds cool?)
The same excommunication was enacted of course upon elemental spirits – water spirits, tree spirits, gnomes, leprechauns, what-have-you. As recently depicted in ‘The Two Towers’, not all tree spirits are necessarily positive beings – but many of them are. The naiads and dryads of greek mythology are examples of this kind of being. In all modern initiations, contact with such entities is assumed to be the first step before contact with gods and what have you. They are a way of coming to know the makro kosmos. Nature cannot be known without them – or anyway, for the alchemically-minded, without the energies they embody.
Some spirits have creative and some destructive functions. Are we to stomach baloney about the spirit whose body was hurricane Katrina being ‘evil’? I hope not. Naturally we hope for better weather, and if you know the right demon you might just get it.
Whether elementals or daimons, contact with such beings was proscribed as either foolish or evil by post-pagan religions, and the fact that they are a necessary part of creation be damned. Burn the witch! Certain of these entities are very powerful, and my opinion is that some have had a raw deal. They were all lumped in with the kind of things you need to exorcise, as a way of brushing the whole question of the natural world and humanity’s place in it under the rug. Etc.
Of course, every single one of these post-pagan religions has to deal with the fact that magic works. In Islam they keep quite about the Zar-spirits that are still worked with by Egyptian families. In mainstream catholicism you don’t hear much about Santeria and its matching of Saints to African Yoruba deities and heroes. These hierarchies of beings never, ever, EVER went away! It’s just that their existence was hushed up. And people bought it.
NNNovember 25, 2006 at 5:52 pm #19400
see for example Freke/Gandy on Gnosticism. Not a bad site they have there but not quite my taste. I like ‘beyond the tyranny of belief’ as a tagline – they should read some Chaos magic, it might liven them up!
Seriously, the split between Gnosticism and what became the mainstream church was in my opinion not the same as the split I am talking about between gnosticism and paganism.
Gnosticism was a chaotic movement with very few common elements – the only main one was rejection of paganism really. A similar movement occurred in Hermetics with Hermes rather than Christ as the central figure. These were mystical movements with many weird and wonderful characters and theories in them. However the main tenet was always that there is a necessity to escape physical creation as evil, and ‘God the Father’, a male figure, always had primacy.
The Church, meanwhile, removed all the elements of mysticism from Christianity and substituted a literalist interpretation of the New Testament scriptures, primarily for political ends – it was never a mystical movement. The instigator of its offical adoption by the Roman Empire, Constantine, deliberately avoided converting to Christianity himself until his death so that he could continue to sin until the last possible moment.
There was certainly a huge amount of disinformation about Gnosticism on the part of the church. But that was due to political rather than mystical disagreements – the great welter of bizarre theories in gnosticism was an easy broad target for those with the political muscle to back up their theology. They crushed dissent.
The end result of this turmoil was control of spirituality in the hands of a political priesthood, with the old ways burned to the ground. And the big change between the old ways and the new was always that the natural world had changed from being something to be amongst, be tested by, grow and develop a relationship with, to something for exploitation and the generation of pain and sin, period. It was frustration with and the desire to escape from life.
I do not for a minute suggest it wasn’t necessary to rejuvenate spirituality. The old pagan ways had in many cases fallen off from their old brilliance. Even the Platonists (apart from Iamblichus) were getting lost in theory and abstraction. It was time for change to sweep through. But babies were thrown out helter-skelter with the bathwater.
NNNovember 25, 2006 at 6:49 pm #19402
Any suggested resources on the panoply of earth spirits / elementals / djinn, and how to contact them?
ChrisNovember 25, 2006 at 8:09 pm #19404
One thing I love about this board is you can ask if anyone’s had any interaction with Michael Morgan and have the group launch into an extended conversation about Iamblichus, elemental spirits, god and gnosticism. Some very interesting stuff.
It is, of course, also one of the things I find frustrating about this board. (What can you do? Probably a lesson in life in there somewhere).
I’m glad Michael spoke up because I know you know Morgan (or knew him, and in fact just recently mentioned lapland in one of your posts).
I’m really interested in Michael’s or anyone else’s views about the validity of his central claims about himself, his channeling, etc., his general grasp on reality, and what his 20 year apprenticeship with Yokar has produced.
Iamblichus dijnNovember 26, 2006 at 2:52 am #19406
A question or two: When you say morgan is christian, that is a broad classification; how does that fit in with the idea of developing free will unless it is based on supporting the idea of jesus as an alchemist, or esoteric scientist-priest-alchemist? It seems that many christian sects are now bent on the idea of obeying authourity that is more along the lines of “dissolve yourself into this collective thoughtform” rather than “be an individual”, although there was a debate in the 3rd century between st. augustine and another fellow (Pleius or something) about the concepts of free will and obeying authority; in the end st. augustine gave the emperor a gift of horses, and now we have the legacy of “obey authority”.
Also, according to Morgan, if the local prime creator has vanquished his opponent that opposes free will, like you mentioned, is it that the heavenly opposition is now replaced with the jealousy against ascended humans by the other djinns? I guess our best allies in this case are other ascended humans who can be a bridge, or guides in connecting with the origin: true?November 26, 2006 at 2:57 am #19408
It seems that at some point shortly after the life of jesus, western spiritual evolution was hijacked into supporting the “dissolve yourself” path rather than the “individuate yourself” path, would this be the result of higher forces at play, humans own inner resistance, or both?November 26, 2006 at 4:02 am #19410
What immediately comes to my mind is that just prior to the time of Jesus humanity entered the Piscean age. Pisces is the great ocean of being and divine love from which everything is born and to which everything dies. The idea of dissolving into the oneness and losing all individuality (which was the primary characteristic of the age before -Aries) is central to it. The Aquarian age which we are into now is hallmarked by a sense of the individual as part of the community, freedom, innovation and the broadest possible viewpoint of reality.
The horribly negative forms that manifested through all the Piscean energy – the loss of self in a negative way, self-sacrificing to get the love of God…- were the result, as I see it, of the unprocessed issues of fear and guilt in the human psyche that have needed to die in order that the race be reborn.
AlexanderNovember 26, 2006 at 4:23 am #19412
I didn’t consider the larger cycles of the star houses, so we spend 2160 years in each constellation right? I wonder how that plays into the Star tribes, that michael W mentions in his lectures (other than the idea of the virtue qualities from each direction)? would be nice to have some clarity on that.
In daoist cosmology there are 10 celestial stems and twelve terretrial branches, so this is reversed (the twelve constellations), and all of them seem to fall into the four directions, so maybe we crossed from one of the four directions into the next as well, another reason for the psychic shift? Here is some generic info on the chinese astrological structure for anyone interested:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chinese constellations are the way ancient Chinese grouped the Stars. It is very different from the western constellations, due to the independent development of ancient Chinese astronomy.
Ancient Chinese skywatchers divided their night sky into 31 regions, namely Three Enclosures (ÈýÔ« san yu¨¢n) and Twenty-eight Mansions (¶þÊ®°ËËÞ er shi ba xi¨´). The Three Enclosures occupy the area close to the North Celestial Pole. The stars in the Three Enclosures can be seen all year around.
The Twenty-eight Mansions occupy the zodiac region of the sky. They can be considered as the equivalent to the 12 zodiacal constellations in the Western Astronomy. Contrary to the Western Astronomy, the Twenty-eight Mansions reflect the movement of the Moon in a lunar month rather than the Sun in a Solar Year.
The Three Enclosures and the Twenty-Eight Mansions are further divided into 283 asterisms. Each visible star is assigned into one of the asterisms. Some of the asterisms only have one star. Traditionally, a star is named by combining the name of its asterism with a number.
1 Three Enclosures
2 The Twenty-Eight Mansions
3 The Southern Asterisms
4 Chinese Star Designation
The Three Enclosures are the Purple Forbidden Enclosure (×ÏÎ¢Ô«), the Supreme Palace Enclosure (Ì«Î¢Ô«) and the Heavenly Market Enclosure (ÌìÊÐÔ«). The Purple Forbidden Enclosure occupy the northernmost area of the night sky. From the viewpoint of the ancient Chinese, the Purple Forbidden Enclosure lies in the middle of the sky, and is circled by all the other stars.
The Supreme Palace Enclosure lies east and north to the Purple Forbidden Enclosure, while the Heavenly Market Enclosure lies west and south. The Three Enclosures are separated by “walls”, which are asterisms with their shapes resembling their namesakes.
The Twenty-Eight Mansions
The zodiac is listed below,
note: all translations of the names of the Xiu are done literally, they may not be the true and original meaning
note 2: the name following the tranlations are the approximate location of the Xiu on the western skymap
(ËÄÏó) “Xiu” (ËÞ)
name pinyin lit. translation vicinity in western sky
The Azure Dragon of the East
(|·½Çàý) ½Ç Jiao Horn Spica (alpha vir)
¿º Kang Neck Virgo
Øµ Di Root Libra
·¿ Fang Room Libra
ÐÄ Xin Heart Antares
Î² Wei Tail Scorpius
»þ Ji Winnowing-basket Sagittarius
The Vermillion Bird of the South
(ÄÏ·½ÖìÈ¸) ¾® Jing Well Gemini
¹í Gui Ogre/Demon Cancer
Áø Liu Willow Hydra
ÐÇ Xing Star Alphard
Zhang Growth Crater
Òí Yi Wings Corvus
ÝF Zhen Strongly (as of emotion) Corvus
The White Tiger of the West
(Î÷·½°×»¢) ¿ü Kui Legs Andromeda
ä Lou Bond Aries
Î¸ Wei Stomach Aries
êÄ Mao Hairy head Pleiades
® Bi Net Taurus
õþ Zi Turtle beak Orion
¢ Shen Three stars Orion
The Black Tortoise (or Xuan Wu) of the North
(±±·½ÐþÎä) ¶· Dou Dipper Sagittarius
Å£ Niu Ox Capricornus
Å® N¨¹ Girl Aquarius
Ì Xu Emptiness Aquarius
Î£ Wei Danger Aquarius/Pegasus
ÊÒ Shi Room Pegasus
±Ú Bi Wall Algenib Pegasus
The Southern Asterisms
The sky around the south celestial pole was unknown to ancient Chinese. Therefore, it was not included in the Three Enclosures and Twenty-Eight Mansions system. However, by the end of the Ming Dynasty, Xu Guangqi introduced another 23 asterisms based on the knowledge of western star charts. These asterisms were since incorporated into the traditional Chinese star maps.
Chinese Star Designation
Ancient Chinese astronomers designated names to the visible stars systematically, roughly more than one thousand years before John Bayer did it in a similar way. Basically, every star is assigned to an asterism. Then a number is given to the individual stars in this asterism. Therefore, a star is designated as “Asterism name” + “Number”. The numbering of the stars in a asterism, however, is not based on the apparent magnitude of this star as in Bayern designation, but rather its position in the asterism.
For example, Altair is named ºÓ¹Ä¶þ in Chinese. ºÓ¹Ä is the name of the asterism (literally the Drum at the River). ¶þ is the number designation (two). Therefore it literally means “the Second Star of the Drum at the River.
Some stars also have traditional name, often related with mythology or astrology. For example, Altair is more commonly known as Å£ÀÉÐÇ or Ç£Å£ÐÇ (the Star of the Cowherd) in Chinese, after the mythologic story of Cowherd and Weaver Girl.
These designations are still used in modern Chinese astronomy. All the stars using the traditional name in English are routinely translated with traditional Chinese designations, instead of the translation of its catalogue names.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.