Hello,
The lady's developments, as most of the nebulous conceptions of this
feminist-oriented sect which theosophy is, are based on a confusion,
a confusion between the word 'demon' and the word 'devil', which,
apparently, was first made, in the biblical context, by King George's
translators.
Leaving aside semantic, Julius Evola gave us the true meaning of this
maxim, at the very beginning of an article called "Sulla storia
segreta della sovversione" ('The Secret Story of Subversion') (La
Vita Italiana, 1938): "the ancient maxim 'diabolus deus inversus'
expresses the idea that evil is not so much the effect of a negation
as that of the inversion and the perversion of a higher order". The
confusion on which the lady's developments are based is thus, at the
very best, a confusion of plane.
As far as 'demons' are concerned, Judeo-Christian and pre-Christian
cults differ with respect to the definition of their nature.
In the Bible, 'demons' are subservient to Satan, a figure which,
let's mention it in passing, belongs inherently to Semitic religions.
There are two main theories for the origin of such beings. According
to the first one, they are angels which fell into sin prompted by
Lucifer's rebellion against God (Matt. 25:41; II Pet. 2:4; Rev.12:7-
9). According to the second one, they are the offspring of angels and
antediluvian females, as told by the Jewish Apocalyptic work I Enoch.
This view was resumed by the Christian apologist Justin Martyr and
even influenced the conceptions of Thomas Aquinas, especially with
respect to the sexual behaviour of men. However, the prevailing
Christian view on these matters, adopted, for instance, by Augustine,
derived from Origen's theory of cosmic rebellion: demons are angelic
beings carried away with Satan's apostasy.
In rabbinic speculation, demons are considered as unfortunate spirits
which were left bodiless when God rested on the Sabbath or as those
who were punished for having built the Tower of Babel. The connection
of demons with evil practices is clearly implied in the Hebrew use of
such words as 'sedim' and 'seirim'. Magic, idolatry, and witchcraft,
were closely related to demonic forces (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 96:5). In
the Old Testament, demons are viewed as an opposing force to God and
his angels.
It is when these Hebrew words were translated into the Septuagint
that the concept of 'demon' was restricted to that of an evil spirit.
However, because of the positive sense of 'daimon' in Greek, the
Septuagint and the New Testament preferred the word 'daimonion' to
express this narrowed concept. In the New Testament, 'demons' are
described as 'unclean' and as 'evil spirits'. Just as in the Old
Testament, the connection between demons and idolatry can be found in
the writings of Paul. According to him, the gods worshipped
by 'idolaters' have no existence whatsoever, while demons do exist as
those who spread this worship and to whom the 'idolaters' are
subject; 'demons' will be more active in the latter days and many men
will be seduced by them (I Tim. 4:1; Rev.16:13-14). In Eph. 6:10-18,
Christians are urged to fight "rulers, authorities, powers, this dark
world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Many
references to confrontations between Jesus-Christ and individuals
possessed by a demon are found in the Synoptic Gospels. The demon is
said to have recognised and feared Jesus-Christ... as the Holy One of
God (Matt. 8:28). The New Testament is thus closely akin, in this
respect too, to the Jewish understanding that 'daimonion' are of a
completely evil nature and will be destroyed, just as Satan, by God
(Matt. 25:41).
A shadow of the non-Semitic concept of 'daimon' can however be made
out in the New Testament, when demon-possessed are said to be
characterised by supernatural knowledge (James 2:19) or by superior
strength (Acts 19:16).
As a matter of fact, originally, the Greek words 'daimon'
and 'daimonion', coming from the root word "daio" meaning "to know"
or "to discriminate",
held no evil connotation whatsoever. A 'demon' is a "knowing one",
a "being of intelligence", and, in some very early writings, it was a
title of honour (Aristotle was called a "demon" in the same regard as
others can be called "Reverend" or "Divine"). In Homer's time,
the 'daimonion' were considered as the cause of all ailments, and
they were also believed to heal and give health and harmony. Homer
distinguished 'daimon', the divine power at work among men,
from 'theos', the concept of divine personality. According to
Plutarch, Hesiod had the idea that demons were "spirits of mortals
who had become separated from their earthly bodies". "The demons of
the Greeks - he wrote - were ghosts of genii of departed men; and
they go up and down the earth as observers, and even rewarders of
men; and although not actors themselves, they encourage others to act
in harmony with their views and characters". The pre-Socratic Greek
philosopher Empedocles identifies 'daimon' with the self. Heraclitus
states that "man's character is his daimon". Plato describes it as
a 'guiding genius'.
The concept of 'daimon' as divine guardian and guiding power emerged
along these lines in the fifth century. 'Daimon' was translated into
Latin as genii (from the Latin 'genere': to beget, to generate), a
spirit presiding over the destiny of a person. On a still higher
plane, the 'daimon', as pointed out by Julius Evola in 'The Doctrine
of Awakening' (Part II, Ch.6), is nothing but what is
called 'antharabhâva' – the "intermediary state" - in Buddhism.
Thompkins&Cariou
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:
>
> Demon est Deus inversus (Lat.). A Kabbalistic axiom ; lit., "the
devil is
> god reversed"; which means that there is neither evil nor good, but
that the
> forces which create the one create the other, according to the
nature of the
> materials they find to work upon.
> -- Theosophical Glossary, H. P. Blavatsky
>
> This symbolical sentence, in its many-sided forms, is certainly
most
> dangerous and iconoclastic in the face of all the dualistic later
> religions - or rather theologies - and especially so in the light
of
> Christianity. Yet it is neither just nor correct to say that it is
> Christianity which has conceived and brought forth Satan. As
an "adversary,"
> the opposing Power required by the equilibrium and harmony of
things in
> Nature -- like Shadow to throw off still brighter the Light, like
Night to
> bring into greater relief the Day, and like cold to make one
appreciate the
> more the comfort of heat -- SATAN has ever existed. Homogeneity is
one and
> indivisible. But if the homogeneous One and Absolute is no mere
figure of
> speech, and if heterogeneity in its dualistic aspect, is its
offspring - its
> bifurcous shadow or reflection - then even that divine Homogeneity
must
> contain in itself the essence of both good and evil. If "God" is
Absolute,
> Infinite, and the Universal Root of all and everything in Nature
and its
> universe, whence comes Evil or D'Evil if not from the same "Golden
Womb" of
> the absolute? Thus we are forced either to accept the emanation of
good and
> evil, of Agathodaemon and Kakodaemon as offshoots from the same
trunk of the
> Tree of Being, or to resign ourselves to the absurdity of believing
in two
> eternal Absolutes!
> -- Secret Doctrine, vol I, ch Xi, H. P. Blavatsky