you cited 3 did you not?
What three books ?
anyway i would suggest dr robert svoboda, or someone else more in tune with the east, Western books on devas arent exactly the best imo, I took a look at baal kadmon kali magick, and immediately he referenced kali yuga to kali which was wrong
lol i appear to have messed up the numbers of books you cited maybe idk
The book I cited is based on personal gnosis, philosophy and careful study of systems and beliefs then dissected logically and analysed to form a coherent correlation between Lucifer and Shiva.
well i can tell you from personal experience they are different, scriptures have nothing to do with it, its my experience, however, you have not asked either one if they are the same? the answer may be very interesting
I told you I have worked with both, actually I have worked with both for nearly a decade and Indeed both stated they are the same.
so you asked them then, you never did answer me thats why i asked again
thats interesting though, but i still maintin they are not, at least not shiva in his peaceful aspect, because they are Aspect of Source, Lucifer split off from Source
Well 10 years with Lucifer 8 years with Shiva
All spirits are separate and yet connected to source unless they are physical beings
2 Likes
in a senseâŚbut not exactlyâŚill explain, see Source eventually calls you back, some Beings, like lucifer, decided to go their own way, Ill think for myself, if i want to fuck i will fuck, if i want to do this ill do this, hes not subjecting himself to the Authority of Source, Shiva on the other hand, is.
Everything is an aspect of source though yes, doesnt mean everyone will Follow Source, and that is fine.
Shiva follows Source, Bhairav is Dark Source
Lucifer ime, does not follow Source
you want to end it here lol?
1 Like
cool thx for discussion 
1 Like
I was busy sorry, well from what I understand from years of soul travel, all things are under the connection of source no matter what except for acasual existence, which is a place separate from existence which is untouched by divine providence.
2 Likes
my man I just posted something very interesting
No Lord Brahma.
Hi C Kendall,
Just wanted to add a few points here because it seems youâre in a very interesting discussion.
First, before I add my remarks, I feel itâs important to add - I have nothing against Lucifer.
However, I must pontificate, the conflation of Lord Shiva and Lucifer to be one and the same seems to be conjecture as it totally disregards Shaivite scripture, general Vedic scripture, and Lord Shivaâs own shastra.
I think it is responsible to mention, all eminent masters of the Shiva Sampradaya would disregard this idea â not out of some pre-existing bias against Lucifer, just that it doesnât make any sense from scriptural point of view or a spiritual point of view. This point could be used to make an argument for why the comparison/conflation wasnât made by them in the past.
I think most people here could agree these foremost devotees dating back centuries would know a thing or two about the ontological nature of Lord Shiva and his various functions. Over and above these persons you cite as spiritual pioneers.
And further, these spiritual pioneers you reference that can argue for this particular conflation of Lucifer and Lord Shiva, I ponder then if they can discuss at large how then Lucifer is one and the same with Durvasa Muni, or Lord Hanuman, or Sri Advaitaacharya â after all all forms of Lord Shiva are non-different.
The more one deep dives into the task, the more one would inevitably see that Lucifer has very little in common with Lord Shiva save and except a few characteristics which you previously mentioned.
There are canons written on the complete form of Lord Shiva â who is (Saddashiva) and the various forms that emanate from him.
The conflation of Lucifer and Shiva is no where to be found in any of this scripture, including modern canon.
Many beings have the same characteristics, can represent the same things, carry the same weapons, that does not mean they are one and the same. Following this trajectory, you could then conflate anything with everything then.
Also the point you make that Lord Shiva represents unbounded passion. This is in direct contradiction to his very nature, what he himself says about himself, and what his wife says, and his devotees observe,
He is been referred to as Tapasya personified.
Unless you mean, that his unbound passion refers to the fervor and joy he has to serve Lord Vishnu. Because there are no writings which portray Lord Shiva as a âKarmiâ with unbound passion. To suggest this, might be a misinterpretation of the sanskrit or particular lila.
I appreciate everyone has their own ideas about what a being is like too. And thereâs validity to everyoneâs unique claims. But I would say, to an extent â that extent being oneâs own experience.
And exporting oneâs own experience as a whole sale mainstream conclusion is a little risky imo.
I see you making the argument that youâre not wanting to limit your beliefs/experience to scripture. As you allude â it is an existing system of thought and belief but that does not mean it may be complete in itself.
I agree. But Iâd also say, it doesnât mean it is not complete.
This argument anyway is a bit of strawman as by the same argument you counter, you infer your own ideas as authoritative on the subject. This is by itself in direct contradiction to what Lord Shiva teaches about how he can be known.
At some point, weâd have to levy credence in a responsible way on ideas that seem to have lasted the longest, or most widely accepted vs popular new age ideas?
The barometer for how we afford that credence in my view is simple so long as we consider the most eminent subject matter experts as the authority â after all theyâve given their whole lives to a cause.
Take for example, say I decided to talk about you at great length and discuss all of your attributes and values because I had read a couple of things about you and decided to concoct mentally what you were all about. Then I decided to tell the worldâŚ
Iâm sure Iâd be way off the mark, right? Perhaps even offensive?
So I make my point that those who have been serving Lord Shiva their entire lives know him best, and Lord Shiva says the same that heâs known ONLY through his devotees, and through devotional service.
Very similar to the injunctions Lord Krishna gives in the popular vedic text the Bhagavad Gita.
I appreciate this idea is at odds with your idea of not wanting to limit ones belief system to just one presentation, in this case of Lord Shiva. But there really is only one presentation of Lord Shiva â and it is scriptural. And was purportedly given by Lord Shiva himself. Anything beyond this is, personal conjecture.
1 Like
The conflation may be a useful tool to achieve a goal in personal gnosis. You start mixing different gods and goddesses into a single thing in your imagination, and interesting things happenâŚgiven both or many of the beings you are conflating allow it. What I speak many would consider profane, but I suspect its why certain magickains will say ______ and ____ are the same, and others will experience something completely different.
How do we know we are ever interacting with the actual entity and not a representation of the said entity? If whats being conflated are mental projections of the said entity, then perhaps mixing ones that are unrelated as a formula for sorcery and personal alchemy can bring about some interesting resultsâŚ
1 Like
well if you ask shiva if he is lucifer then he will say yes. He is everyone. He is inside every one and even he says that. The oldest god shiva told all the names are mine and everyone is inside me and i am inside everyone. so yes if asked he will say i am lucifer. If you ask am I shiva? the shiva will say yes. but this doesnt mean they are same.
1 Like