Does anyone specialize in demonology in here? I just need clarification on a few things here. So a lot of people look at the baphomet as a spirtual symbol correct? I don't know what he's looked at like now a days with the occult and all but I just found out he's actually a demon. Basically check this out. If you have read the dictionarie infernal it gives an account of what he's like. But in this wiki article it goes into a slight detail of more about him. His proper name is Leonard.
Also I wish I could post the pic of the actual dictionarie but it won't let me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_(demon) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_(demon)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Baphomet
Satan
Lucifer

Are much more and beyond being demons

Baphomet is the Highest God of the surviving Knights Templars
Satan is a Organization God
Lucifer is a Freedom God
The Xristos is a Love God

Caiyros

Then why is that in the dictionarie infernal along with other demons


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I am about to write does not fall your self, but it does fall on Religious Nut-Jobs. and so on

To answer your questions, the writings and publications in the Occult Metaphysical world always has some idiots that (1) Just make things up (2) read texts that are heavily written for all the abrahamic Religions, and those who cannot grasp that there are "Beings" that can only be defined by the very "Being it, him, or her self and there is no reason while all beings cannot be complex without being rubber stamped as "Bad" (in its many definitions.

Noc has amazingly defined the undefinable (or so it was! LOL)

Caiyros

The Styx Group wrote:What I am about to write does not fall your self, but it does fall on Religious Nut-Jobs. and so on

To answer your questions, the writings and publications in the Occult Metaphysical world always has some idiots that (1) Just make things up (2) read texts that are heavily written for all the abrahamic Religions, and those who cannot grasp that there are "Beings" that can only be defined by the very "Being it, him, or her self and there is no reason while all beings cannot be complex without being rubber stamped as "Bad" (in its many definitions.

Noc has amazingly defined the undefinable (or so it was! LOL)

Caiyros

I wholeheartedly agree with this. People who write on the supernatural/paranormal/occult from the standpoint of one of the Abrahamic religions almost always try to cast it in a negative light, because they tend to have such a narrow minded concept of the divine energies that influence this world.

Noctifera wrote:Baphomet is not a demon. Demons can take many forms and it is possible they could manifest similarly to the Baphomet or embody this essence in their way. However Baphomet is something much beyond, as Caiyros has commented.

It would be worth your while to reach out to the force of Baphomet directly, if you want to understand better. There are a lot of interesting written philosophies out there, but you're only going to get truth in approaching these forces yourself.

Baphomet is a very complex deific being that encompasses the above and the below, the sacred feminine and masculine as one (hermaphrodite), and the force of duality (dark and light) as complements to one another. This can include a perfect harmony of angelic and demonic features as well, if you wish to look at it that way.
Baphomet represents the highest illumination of self and this is often why one will find this figure revered in Luciferian circles. However Baphomet is not Luciferian, either.. nobody can make claim to define Baphomet - this force is purely 'what it is', and cannot be adulterated otherwise no matter how people may try.

That's my take. When you're dealing with Baphomet you're dealing with divine truth.

Just wanted to say, that was an amazing description. 1d

Josephnapier wrote:Then why is that in the dictionarie infernal along with other demons


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why is anything written anywhere? It's not gospel. Not everything you find, no matter how well respected, should be taken as gospel. You have to be able to draw your own personal conclusions from your own experience or comparison of lore.

For that matter not all people who are well versed in a subject would agree with each other, realities are viewed through individual perception. One person can legitimately experience Baphomet in a certain way and declare 'this and this and this!', another person can get a completely different impression and it doesn't make one wrong or the other right. Truth and reality are more complex than this, and actually Baphomet is an awesome representation - Baphomet embodies all of those aspects in a mysterious form I personally would not want to render just 'one' way or another. Baphomet is Baphomet.

As far as what I am aware of Leonard, he is not at all definitively linked to Baphomet. There is an association, which goes back to what I said about certain demons taking likenesses in form or essence. Leonard is a being unto himself and Baphomet is Baphomet, is what I would say to you as an answer of a most base level.

If one were to evoke Leonard they may encounter certain visuals and implications that lead them to believe there's a link to Baphomet. If one were to ask such a being they may claim to be Baphomet, and they may not be toying with the individual; but one could easily say 'I am Baphomet' and it is something to be interpreted - not to be taken as literal, or literal in a sense the magician involved would be able to fathom in that moment.
Reality, information, words, symbols - not only how they are relayed, but what secrets they hold and how they are translated is important. The one who claims Leonard as Baphomet may be asking you to decide what that really means, as well.

There are other entities and deities which take a particular goat form and represent certain qualities of Baphomet, and they seem to commonly be combined rather than respected for their individual presence. They could very well be associated on a divine level, through their commonalities, but they are still to be regarded distinctly in my opinion.

So here are many things for you to consider ^ from a few different angles, in your search for personal truth.

Well that actually makes sense because it was published in 1813. It was originally in French and only until semi recentily was it printed in English


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Noctifera wrote:

Josephnapier wrote:Then why is that in the dictionarie infernal along with other demons


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why is anything written anywhere? It's not gospel. Not everything you find, no matter how well respected, should be taken as gospel. You have to be able to draw your own personal conclusions from your own experience or comparison of lore.

For that matter not all people who are well versed in a subject would agree with each other, realities are viewed through individual perception. One person can legitimately experience Baphomet in a certain way and declare 'this and this and this!', another person can get a completely different impression and it doesn't make one wrong or the other right. Truth and reality are more complex than this, and actually Baphomet is an awesome representation - Baphomet embodies all of those aspects in a mysterious form I personally would not want to render just 'one' way or another. Baphomet is Baphomet.

As far as what I am aware of Leonard, he is not at all definitively linked to Baphomet. There is an association, which goes back to what I said about certain demons taking likenesses in form or essence. Leonard is a being unto himself and Baphomet is Baphomet, is what I would say to you as an answer of a most base level.

If one were to evoke Leonard they may encounter certain visuals and implications that lead them to believe there's a link to Baphomet. If one were to ask such a being they may claim to be Baphomet, and they may not be toying with the individual; but one could easily say 'I am Baphomet' and it is something to be interpreted - not to be taken as literal, or literal in a sense the magician involved would be able to fathom in that moment.
Reality, information, words, symbols - not only how they are relayed, but what secrets they hold and how they are translated is important. The one who claims Leonard as Baphomet may be asking you to decide what that really means, as well.

There are other entities and deities which take a particular goat form and represent certain qualities of Baphomet, and they seem to commonly be combined rather than respected for their individual presence. They could very well be associated on a divine level, through their commonalities, but they are still to be regarded distinctly in my opinion.

So here are many things for you to consider ^ from a few different angles, in your search for personal truth.

Not to mention, some people have linked Pan and various fertility gods to Baphomet as well, claiming them to be one and the same being. It's just one of the reasons why it's a good idea to do extensive research, finding as many different sources of information as possible when you want to learn about a subject, rather than relying on a single source, or even a small handful of sources. 1rd