“Free Love” of Asmodeus
One of the best-known demons, who for millennia has wielded great power among humans, is the Lord of the Dark Moon – Asmodeus (Heb. אשמדאי Ashmedai (numerical value — 356– lunar year length + 1 day) – the name means “creation (or being) of judgment”; also – shamad (שמָדַ) – “to destroy”, “to curse”, hence the form “Shamdōn“, “the Accursed”, שַמְדון) or Sidonai (שִדנאָי, numerical value – 364 – length of the solar year -1 day). It is held that his name is akin to Aeshma-dev, one of the spirits comprising the supreme triad of evil in Iranian tradition, a demon of fury and lust.
Another name of the demon — Adad (אדֲד ʼĂdad, “Red”) attests to his passionate, untameable nature, and the name Avnon (אבנון, “Stone”) testifies to his invincibility (in Islam one of Asmodeus’s epithets is “Ṣakhr”, “Rock”, “Stone”).
Asmodeus is among the demons that most often possess people.
The Malleus Maleficarum calls him “Prince of incubi and succubi”, emphasizing his link with carnal lust. In the Lemegeton Asmodeus (the 32nd spirit in the list) is a King ruling in the East — he is named principal among the 72 listed demons, alongside Bael, Belial and Gaap. Seated upon a dragon, Asmodeus rules over the depths of the realm of sensation. His three heads — bull, ram and human — were considered inherently lascivious. His rooster-like legs likewise indicate his dominion over sensuality.
Expressing the powers of the Dark Moon, Asmodeus rules the shadow side of sensuality, and so he is called a demon of lust and debauchery, consort of Lilith – the Dark Mother of Worlds. However, unlike Astaroth, acting as her binary complement to the Dark Mother’s forces, Asmodeus is her «alter ego», the masculine, albeit less prominent, face. In antiquity the figure of Dionysus fulfilled a similar function, though without the demonic hue so characteristic of Asmodeus.
At the same time, Asmodeus is associated with Mercury, and therefore expresses — or distorts the aspect of sexuality linked to Hermes and embodied in the phallic pillars — herms.
The legend of Asmodeus’s subjugation by Solomon and the use of this archdemon as the builder of the Temple is intended to show that ascent to the Throne of the Most High is possible only after the subordination of sensual impulses to the light of reason. In this tale Asmodeus appears precisely as an elemental force, unpredictable, beyond human control, and dangerous. Solomon manages to impose his magical authority upon him. Asmodeus reveals a certain secret, namely: the secret of the shamir, a worm that cleaves stone, thereby avoiding forbidden iron tools, and assists in building the temple. At the same time, Asmodeus also handed Solomon a magical book called “the Book of Asmodeus” (references to it occur in the Zohar). In return Solomon invited Asmodeus to display his might and gave him his magical ring; Asmodeus immediately grew into a winged giant of immeasurable size, hurled Solomon a great distance, assumed the king’s appearance and took his place. Solomon was forced to wander, expiating his pride, while Asmodeus ruled in Jerusalem (Gittin). Even here Asmodeus shows his nature as a demon of lust and an enemy of marriage by presiding over Solomon’s harem, systematically violating ritual bans that protect marital purity, and even attempting incest.
It is believed that this Great Ring is the chief object of Asmodeus’s power: «And he will bow down to the earth and give the Ring of Power» (Lemegeton).
In the deuterocanonical Book of Tobit there is the story of Asmodeus’s passion for Sarah, daughter of Raguel. She married seven times, and each time Asmodeus killed her husband on the first wedding night. In the end, Tobias, on the advice of the Archangel Raphael, expelled the demon by burning the heart and liver of a fish — that is, by harnessing the power of the waters — that element of lust. There was also a belief that the serpent Asmodeus and the serpent who seduced Eve were one and the same creature.
In this legend attention is drawn to the contrast between Asmodeus — the demon of lust in the broadest sense — and the Archangel Raphael — the angel of good intentions. Thus is introduced the idea of “taming” destructive emotional and sensual currents by the efforts of reason and understanding, an idea very characteristic of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Note, however, that such opposition, though often practically justified and effective, is not wholly harmonious, since only the Archangels of the corresponding spheres — Gabriel and Uriel — can truly subdue Asmodeus.
The most important aspect of all the legends about Asmodeus is that this demon functions as a particular foe of one of God’s institutions — marriage. This motif is developed in the apocryphal “Testament of Abraham,” dating from the 1st century. His very nature inclines him to undermine conjugal life by means of impotence, coldness and the perversion of desires (“Testament of Solomon”).
Asmodeus distorts the energy of bonding and attraction, turning it into a force of possession and dependence, and thus becomes, along with Bael and Belial, another “supreme king” and selector of human society, actively involved in turning people into a herd that feeds infernal powers.
In the Middle Ages it was believed that witches were subject to Asmodeus, and sorcerers called on him for aid, attempting to direct his power against their enemies.
Asmodeus is a demon of the closed heart. He prevails when caprice and whims rule where feeling and desire should reign.
It is understandable that for millennia the uncontrolled, elemental force of passion was stigmatized by society and terrified hypocrites. The incredible difficulty of mastering this principle meant that Asmodeus constantly held the attention of theologians — he was opposed by the “most devout” of the saints — John the Baptist, who overcame passion by fleeing to the desert and opened the way there for many “mortifiers of the flesh.”
Nevertheless, flight from sensuality is a recognition of its invincibility — and therefore in fact a capitulation to Asmodeus. Magi of the modern era noted this, especially Crowley, who for this very reason earned the reputation of “the most debauched man of his time.”
However, plunging headlong into the abyss of passion does not defeat Asmodeus either — in his realm he is absolute ruler. Many who proclaim the “necessity of reaching the depths of sensuality in order to overcome it” remain in those depths, lacking the strength to return to the surface. This is precisely the great danger of sexual magic, which, alongside powerful creative forces, awakens Asmodeus’s power.
At the same time, like any truly demonic being, he fears the light of reason, preferring the gloom of elemental depths.
From there he dictates his will, and not only does he drive people into outright debauchery, but, more dangerously, he passes off his voice as love’s voice. Nothing is more characteristic of Asmodeus than the contemporary colloquial phrase “to make love” — even leaving aside the obvious trivialization, it is this demon who reduces love to an ‘activity,’ depriving the feeling of its divine status. Another typical manifestation of Asmodeus is the phrase “I love him (her) for… (beauty, intelligence, wealth, etc.),” which likewise flattens the feeling of love.
It is the efforts of Lilith and Asmodeus that have led to love becoming a vanishing phenomenon, and the abilities to love and to be loved the rarest of skills.
Neither flight from sensuality nor absorption in it is victory over Asmodeus. Only a heart open to selfless love, only honesty with oneself and transparency of mind banish the demon of lust.
Can the influence (dependence on) Asmodeus be transmitted by inheritance?
Can Asmodeus be expelled using the Circle of Semargl?
Yes, but the Circle must be modified considering the colossal scale of such a predator. Asmodeus feeds on the energy of lust – one of the most powerful emissions – and will not simply want to leave.
So, it turns out you’re offering to cut off sensuality?
By no means. No infringement on nature, no violence against it is beneficial for the development of consciousness. Just replace lust with feelings; only the consumer attitude needs to be cut off.
A very relevant article like many of your others, which once again confirms that there is a very significant difference between true selfless and dependency-free Love and sexual physiological needs…
Is homosexuality also a product of the activities of this demon? Or is it another phenomenon?
No. Same-sex relationships can be pure if they are based on love. If they are based on lust and mutual consumption – then, of course, the demon was involved. But in this sense, there is no fundamental difference between homo- and heterosexual relationships.
For relationships to be based on love, it is necessary for both partners to desire love relationships and not just mutual consumption (not only one of them)?
Will such people attract each other themselves or do some additional elements (conditions, practices, rituals…) need to be present for attraction?
No, no rituals are necessary for love. Nevertheless, a lot of strength and talent is needed for it.
Well, how do you fight it?
I believe that an important problem in countering the harmful influence of Asmodeus is the fact that, apart from the lust brought in from the outside, there exists a natural attraction between the sexes (people).
In this case, by illuminating the object of desire with the light of consciousness, one can usually determine without difficulty whether the attraction to it is a natural desire for closeness or inspired by the fog of predatory influence.
Again, honesty with oneself is needed here. One must also avoid deep immersion in the element of passion and lust (not love!), as the forces of awareness available to a person at a specific moment may no longer be sufficient to escape the captivity of desires. Discipline is needed!
I found key concepts to live by here. I always asked people: is that, damn it, like ‘loving for something’? What kind of love is that? And the phrase ‘making love’ I also did not like.. Well, at least here I found something. Love truly is a talent, and it does not conform to logic. Here, selflessness and honesty are important. It’s no wonder they say ‘two halves of a whole.’
The image of Lilith has also been deliberately distorted with the advent of patriarchy. No one can claim that Lilith is to blame for the disappearance of the ability to love. Lilith was a very specific historical figure. She was persecuted and discredited by priests even in Atlantis. Is this unproven? No more unproven than this entire article. Just as Hypatia of Alexandria was brutally killed by a mob of Christians, and her life was replaced by that of a certain St. Catherine, who did not even exist in reality. Many demons have been attributed to innocent beings that did indeed exist—or even beings of truly high nature. All of this historically happened not so long ago and had purely worldly reasons. Therefore, to assert in terms like “so-and-so is to blame for all misfortunes” can be found in some fantasy novels or computer games, but nothing more than that. There is a serious website, Castalia.ru, where many topics are covered very clearly and deeply, including Lilith, Crowley, Lucifer, and many other subjects. There are Christians who seem to share your opinions. There are Satanists who do the same, but in the opposite manner. There is so much variety in the world! Your position, however, is extremely unclear. If you promote individualization, then church tales cannot be an authority for you. And if you agree with the majority on these matters, then you cannot consider yourself a seeker of individuation, nor can you identify with any Gnostics, who see things quite differently. I believe you will not present this. So at least read it yourself. There was once a Valery Lomovtsev. He is still around, though not much is heard about him nowadays. In his earlier days, he created an entire worldview from completely disparate pieces that fit poorly together. Ultimately, he formed what he called a Practical Worldview, which had nothing practical in it and which rightly faded into obscurity. He also claimed to know a lot about angels and hell. Many things were indeed revealed to him—about 30%. The rest he speculated and compiled, presenting it as truth. This rendered his works completely worthless, as there was no one to separate the wheat from the chaff. And he produced a lot of material—probably around 20 volumes, not counting lectures on tapes and reels. So by asserting as facts what isn’t even a hypothesis, you risk either devolving into something trivial or creating yet another useless mass of stone made up of contradictory and mutually exclusive information. The well-known Boreyev suffered from something similar, which caused many of his useful insights to no longer be taken seriously, as he mixed together facts, hypotheses, rumors, and his own fantasies into one pile. There are many like that. The same goes for Muldashev. This is a level that should have remained in the past millennium.
From the first words.
I am an ordinary person, not engaged in any practices. It so happened that I encountered phenomena that I could not explain, and that considerably hindered my life. I found this blog by chance, like many probably do, those who seek answers. First of all, I want to say that I am grateful to the author of this blog. He shares his experience, and his experience benefits others. I will say from myself, his articles helped me to solve certain unpleasant moments in my life, improving it for the better.
I would like to point out to you, the Author says himself that he is not the final instance; he simply shares his experience, SHARES, but does not impose. If you read more carefully, you will find this statement of his.
You write that there is a more serious site, then why are you so actively expressing yourself here, criticizing. Criticism is good, I agree, but when it is moderate. If something doesn’t suit you, why do you flame so much? Find what suits your soul. Although maybe you just want to get it off your chest, it has brewed, then this justifies such a strong push.
There are many ways to realize this to the fullest. For instance, I went out into the field and screamed with all my might. You can sit in a train and find a fellow traveler, whom you will never meet again, share with them, etc.
I hope it doesn’t come to your mind to be offended by me; each of us has a multitude of problems, I just sometimes read your comments, from you such a flow that if I were in the place of your fellow traveler, I would probably run away 🙂
I attended the Kabbalistic congress with M.S. Lightman over the weekend. I united with the desire to give what I uncovered within myself about Asmodeus and Lilith. It’s good that I had a positive experience thanks to the Light of Enmerkar when I previously stopped studying Kabbalah. But I returned to Lightman under the impression of Kabbalah. Here, such a revelation of the Creator is apparently called by Kabbalists Asmodeus and Lilith. What to do? I shout to those I work with that a woman has revealed herself to me, revealing herself as the Creator, and they feed me some kind of nonsense. In general, to focus on my state, I said goodbye to them since they aren’t useful. I’m lying here thinking that they all deal with the Creator, while a demon reveals itself to me with nowhere to hide. I’m glad I already had positive experience with the publications of this blog, and it shone a light on me again.
Asmodeus can change appearance, present himself as anyone. Asmodeus is against the institution of marriage, that is, against pure love. He fears the light of consciousness, prefers the darkness of elemental depths. Well then, to deal with Asmodeus, one must: 1) be open with your partner, so your partner can trust, know, and understand you, and then the demon will not be able to present himself as your partner. 2) the institution of marriage is primarily a combination of trusting, responsible, close, and ‘real’ relationships by voluntary consent, that is, by love, and not virtual, temporary, episodic, or any others where there is no constant physical contact with the partner. After all, the essence here is not in overly debauched intimate relationships between partners, not in puritanism and abstinence, but rather in complete openness and readiness for everything for the one single partner, on the basis of love (unconditional), requiring nothing but giving everything. 3) the light of consciousness is, as one of the options – the absence of guesses, surmises, assumptions, fabrications, fantasies based on hunger. That is, do not give any reason for any fog, ambiguity, or misunderstandings. And then point 1 will leave (Asmodeus will not be able to pretend to be someone), in point 2 he will also have no place because total openness and satisfaction follow from this, and point 3, of course, will also be blocked. But this is real and possible provided the fog hasn’t yet enslaved consciousness.
Lara, one can be open with one’s partner but not receive openness in return. However, sincerely loving, believing in the best, one might comfort oneself with thoughts that their partner will change, become as open, etc., not realizing that the partner may be driven by initially consumeristic desires. One must not forget about honesty with oneself, and upon seeing the demon in the partner’s face, honestly acknowledge this to oneself. The institution of marriage for me is still a social aspect. It is not about ‘marriage’ itself, but about the conscious choice to live life and work together on the relationship with this particular person. Love, for me, is not about relationships, but rather a state of soul) Simply put, marriage and love are such distorted concepts that everyone understands differently, the very fact of these distortions is already a playground for various demons) The light of consciousness is working with the shadow, working with one’s reactions, desires, emotions, thoughts, which manifest unconsciously – ‘automatically.’ The more destructive manifestations are noticed and analyzed, their roots found and conclusions drawn, the less shadow there will be, the more light)) This is work on oneself and one must honestly admit that there is work to be done)
Do you know what is dangerous about acquaintances online? You think you are communicating with someone specific, but it turns out to be someone completely different. In this case, various kinds of misunderstandings give way to demons, and you love someone, but he is actually so far from you, and is not him at all. But love is not something abstract, not a universal feeling towards everyone, but to someone specific.
GLA, you remind me of someone) If you are exactly the person I am thinking of, then it is pointless for us to talk. I hope you are not a singer?)
I do not know who I remind you of, I am definitely not a singer or a tailor-seamstress; I even have a diploma, I can drop it somewhere in a personal message if you do not believe. I am changing, for sure. If someone had written this to me some time ago, I would not have communicated with you at all, not in any way. But now, well, it’s funny that I am not a singer. And you know, I am here on this site not to argue with anyone; it is just that you can ask questions and get answers here. And actually, I like Enmerkar, I read his articles and book with great interest, and why argue?
GLA, I certainly did not mean to quarrel with you, so I will say to myself ‘stop.’ You very skillfully touched my personal emotional wounds, for which I thank you. But I fully understand that this site is not a place for personal emotions, and projecting onto others isn’t very ethical when there is a real person with unresolved problems. Commenters are not Enmerkars, but are seekers with their own problems, processes, and destructive ‘demons’)) It is not worth mixing the Myth, Enmerkar, and the commentators. Commenters can also teach something, but not everything they write is equally useful for you.