On the Demiurge, the One, and the Source

I want to add here that I consider the Demiurgos to be both personify-able (to an extent), as well as not being able to be personified. The Demiurge is, in a sense, all things, and they inwardly nourish the entire cosmos. They create all things.

However, they can be personified in a sense because all things bear their signature, just as all things bear the signatures of the Gods that create them. For example, we might depict Aphrodite as a beautiful woman. But, Aphrodite (Like the Demiurge, and all the other Gods), in her highest existence, is above the intelligible world. She does not have an image, she does not have a form, and she existed before space was created, she existed before time was created. However, we might depict her as a beautiful woman because beauty points towards her, it is her signature. We see that beautiful flowers with a pleasant scent are in part created by her, because these are her signatures in the world, and they point towards her.

Similarly, you may be familiar with this depiction of Abrasax (Or, Abraxas), considered to be the Demiurge in one branch of Gnosticism (Or, God. From my understanding, he was considered to be benevolent even there):

Fascinating depiction. Now, if the Demiurge is above the world, then similarly, this image is as a signature of them.

Similarly, here is the image of the 1st Degree of Aries given by Raphael in his ‘A description of the Faces and Degrees of the Zodiac’ (Taken from older sources, mainly from Johannes Angelus’ Astrological Optics, which likely also takes his images from older sources)

“In the first degree of Aries, there ascendeth a man holding a sickle in his right hand, and in his left hand an engine of war.
A man then born, or querent, shall be laborious, and much exercised in warlike affairs”

So this is the image of the 1st Degree of Aries, and naturally of the great Lord of that Degree, as well as the character and experience signified by that Degree in a person born with the Ascendant therein, or who asks a Horary question with the Ascendant therein.

But, this would seem strange at first, because, well, the 1st Degree of Aries is just space, a place in the heavens from our perspective, and it seems to be mostly empty, save for some stars, but it itself is beyond the stars. And it is a rather small division of space at that. But this image is its image because it points to the spiritual essence of this Degree, using material things appropriate to this Degree, and we see its effects in the world.

I’m afraid I have very little knowledge of Gnosticism currently. But very interesting! And I like that verse from 1 John. It very much reminds me of a certain Chapter of the Corpus Hermeticum.

Thanks for this! I remember you said you were into Neville Goddard.


Very interesting that you mentioned Abraxas. When I was reading a comment that @Veil wrote earlier in the thread the name Abraxas popped right in my mind.
So a bit of the symbology about the way Abraxas is portrayed in Gnosticism. My source is Manly P. Hall secret teachings of all the ages.
Basilides (Alexandrian branch of Gnosticism) taught that Abraxas represented the 5 emanations:

  1. Divinity as the all powerful source
  2. Nous or mind
  3. Logos or word
  4. Phronesis or intelligence
  5. Sophia (wisdom)
  6. Dynamos (strength)
    Notice how the 5 emanations are descending from the one. Here is my edited Abraxas with words that represent each emanation according to Basilides.

Each body part of Abraxas represents one emanation.

So whether or not the demiurge was evil or benevolent depends on which school of Gnosticism was practiced. Very interesting stuff.


Thanks a lot for this post!

Also, I spell it as Abrasax, since the Abraxas spelling is incorrect to the Greek, resulting from some confusion between two different Greek letters.

Edit: Removed something already explained in the post (That Basilides considered Abrasax to be God to my knowledge)


I also want to add, just for interest, I certainly get quite a benevolent feeling from looking at this image. That may just be me.

Otherwise, the name has been inscribed on many stones for magickal effect.


Interesting you get that feeling. While editing the lines and the words on the image, I noticed the image opened up like a sigil, and I also got a sense benevolence. Not sure if it is something related to me doing something that I like (research occult history etc) during work hours, or if something else is going on, since I read veils response earlier his name popped right in my mind and I got exited at the thought of researching a bit more about him. Even looked into my email and looked up an old paper I did for a lodge meeting on the gnostics and sure enough it made sense since I saw the image I edited in Spanish for that particular lecture I gave. So I edited to English (it’s hard to translate the Spanish greek to English greek lol).


It’s likely no coincidence that we both thought of this name! That image has been on my mind since yesterday or so since I think it’s awesome.


At least for me, this feeling of distrust comes largely from my experience with Christians/ the church along side the old testament. I don’t vibe with the idea of “original sin” and the selfish and jealous nature of the Christian God. From my understanding angels haven’t done me any wrong so I’m not so much distrustful of them in any way.


I still believe in an omnipotent “force” of some kind i just find it hard to believe it would be all “only worship me and also you’re nothing without me” so I’m just looking at everything and seeing what fits for now


This is part of what led me towards Taoism before I got into ritualized magic or any sort. Part of what keeps me leaning back towards it today.


Of course, that seems bizarre to me as well. If you read my other posts, I referenced that the Platonists consider that the Demiurgos (who is identified as Zeus) gave life to all the Gods. So, not jealous at all in that sense.

Socrates in one of Plato’s dialogues also said that it must be impossible for a God to wish to change themselves, as any change would only be to the worse. That is, the Gods are perfect. And Aristotle said that the Gods always exist in a state of divine bliss. Now, jealously and such are often times expressions of lack, and fear coupled with desire. But what could the Gods possibly want? They have everything, and create all things in the cosmos. There is nothing they lack, or need.


Very interesting thought regarding “you’re nothing without me”. I get what you are referring to there. Now, a lot of Protestants don’t really have much of a theology, so illogical or unreasonable things tend to be said and they simply don’t like to question it.

I would say, everything is created by God, however, and all things are part of him, and all things partake of The One.

Here is an Orphic fragment speaking about Zeus, as quoted by Proclus and Aristotle:

“Zeus is the first. Zeus the thunderer, is the last.
Zeus is the head. Zeus is the middle, and by Zeus all things were fabricated.
Zeus is male, Immortal Zeus is female.
Zeus is the foundation of the earth and of the starry heaven.
Zeus is the breath of all things. Zeus is the rushing of indefatigable fire.
Zeus is the root of the sea: He is the Sun and Moon.
Zeus is the king; He is the author of universal life;
One Power, one Dæmon, the mighty prince of all things:
One kingly frame, in which this universe revolves,
Fire and water, earth and ether, night and day,
And Metis (Counsel) the primeval father, and all-delightful Eros (Love).
All these things are United in the vast body of Zeus.
Would you behold his head and his fair face,
It is the resplendent heaven, round which his golden locks
Of glittering stars are beautifully exalted in the air.
On each side are the two golden taurine horns,
The risings and settings, the tracks of the celestial gods;
His eyes the sun and the Opposing moon;
His unfallacious Mind the royal incorruptible Ether.” (I.P Cory, Ancient Fragments, Orphic Fragments from Orpheus)

So, it is suggested that the Demiurgos inwardly nourishes the entire cosmos.


I enjoyed that, that feels alot closer to what I believe the creator would be. Thanks for that man!


This has been moved, with consent, to its own thread so it doesn’t get lost in the off-topic conversation


Please don’t take what I’m going to share as anything expert, there are better sources, one is Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok on his website

In Kabbalah the God is known as the Ain Sof, meaning God in his most unknowable form, beyond reality

The names attributed to God are descriptions of him, Elohim God working in nature for example

God manifests in this world in what’s known as the Sefirot and Partzufim

Sefirot are like the forces God used to create everything, they exist within all things. Example Chesed and Gevurah…Chesed was the expanding energy of the Big Bang, Gevurah was the limiting or rather it limits things in general gives them shape, it can also be death

An example of the Partzufim is the small face of God…Moses saw the small face of God and his face shone after that


Very well put! I look at it like this, of course some of the great cabalist’s took ideas from neo platonism.

The infinite, the one, formless the inefable the nothing. There the idea is he just was even with no thoughts or feelings he just is. It is from the Ain sof that the sephirotic spheres emanate from, hence creation.


Feel free to say more. Your insight is awesome.


No — thank YOU :grin:

I like that we appear to have similar but distinct paradigms, and all the wisdom you’ve gleaned from yours, and Platonism.

Also I didn’t quite explain myself properly (or rather left a lot of things out in my rambling).

This explanation covers the feedback I get from Silence. There is a distinct sense of “otherness” which simply defies being corralled into any explicable persona, or simulacrum of a persona.

But that sense of otherness doesn’t reach to other beings like Melek Tawus or Metatron, who are for most purposes in their own paradigm considered the first emanation or “most beloved of God”, and yet are far more “personified”, in that they have distinct personalities. in my experience, at least: Metatron is law and order, cause and effect, logical and methodical, easing you into the result — and Melek Taus is chaos incarnate and “if it could possibly happen, then I can make it happen, simply by pulling it out of some infinite reality, and fuck the consequences”.

Ignoring that — my point was rather that 1 John 14 distinctly summarises the rambling of Neville Goddard-meets-Gnosticism.

“If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.”

Yes, this is very much a cornerstone of Goddard-style Law of Assumption. Anything you assume to be true, you “ask for in the name of Christ”, by accepting that Christ is the god-spark in man, and by imagining (assuming, or believing ) that you already have what you desire. By doing this you deliberately or inadvertently acknowledge the god-spark in yourself, and by constant imagination (this is the gift of Christ — the ability to imagine), you “ask” for what you wish. And so it is granted by the Father (the innate connection to the Divine Source).

That is the Law of Assumption. The first emanation of God. First, thought and intent. Then grace — how to define it? — approval or favour, privilege, mercy, a special favour — then silence. I suppose putting them in those terms I, again, can see the latter two being reversed. As Goddard always finished his lectures with “And now, let us go into the Silence”. The quietness of mind where you know something is done — where you reach the stage of assumption that Goddard speaks of.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk

It feels to me like the demiurge comes from
Three negative veils

I see silence as the first or last depending on how you look on it veil: ain, meaning nothing, lack.


I should take offense at that :joy: :wink:

I skimmed the article you linked. I am not sure if I personally agree that the first emanation is non-existence… I mean in one sense, yes, it is non-personified and present in every human, so has no set characteristics. But to me that does not say “nonexistence” as much as it says “raw potentiality”.


@Veil I’d say kether is raw potential no? But what comes before that? To me the veils…

I’ve studied Kabbalah with a orthodox ashkenazi rabbi and they always talk about the right side of god, like all mercy and no judgment all action and no potentiality…

What’s hiding behind the source the potential?