THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick From: nagasivaSubject: Re: where to start? Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:37:50 GMT 50010813 VI! om Hail Satan! Hail Yes! "Steven King" : >>> ...for my purse-string, I'm hoping to be able to make some level of >>> progress without the use of any physical tools. nagasiva: >>immaterial results with immaterial tools, apparently. joecosby@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby): > As opposed to what? material. :> observable. tangible. > Do you think using a charm or something is more 'material'? as long as the charm is a physical thing, yes. > Graveyard dust is a 'material' approach versus an approach > using physical tools? no, I was speaking only of imaginary vs. material/physical. > ...There is no material relation between a charm and the > desired effect. then how does it work? what *is* the connection, exactly? > Whether the symbol used is purely mental or is some > physical thing, the link between cause and effect is purely > immaterial. not in all cases. many amulets, for example, contain physical linkage within them (scripture, blessed scroll, etc.). >> why do you have hope of any kind of "progress"? > > How do you suggest he measure progress? depends first on toward what one is attempting to move. if he is trying to get mystical results (spiritual development) then I would recommend a thorough study of mysticism as a general field of endeavour, followed by the practice of mysticism using conventional (physical) means -- whatever tradition suits you, and an assessment of how, within that tradition, measurements of spiritual development are made. developing a coherent notion of what constitutes 'spirit', 'spirituality' and 'progress' along these lines, one may proceed, using a record of one's activities and personal reflections on one's own spirituality as one understands it (or perhaps for the cautious, enlisting a 'trainer' who will watch for signs outside our potential bias). from this point magic may be used in a way that can be assessed as to its effectuality with a guard against self-delusion. > What, if anything, are you trying to say? That not using > 'immaterial tools' would have any relation to some kind of > progress measuring? I'm not a dualist. imagination would seem somewhat different in character than the desired result (fundamental shift in personal character, experience of the world -- spirit). > So, doing magic using Foo-foo dust will necessarily > allow some measure of progress, but doing magic using > the Enochian calls won't? dunno about Enochian calls, but IMAGINING that one is doing the calls is questionable as to its effectiveness because of the differential of character in cause and effect. I'd instead recommend actual vocalizations and see whether it yields what you think it should. >> how will you measure this progress, and how will you keep >> yourself from the horrid pitfall of self-delusion to which >> so many Hermetic mystics have succumbed? > So what exactly is the 'horrid pitfall of self-delusion that > so many hermetic mystics have succumbed to'? inflated ego without real spiritual or material effect. imagining results and claiming them without evidence either to themselves or others. Crowley is a good example of this where it comes to spiritual development. > Are you saying that a practitioner of hermetic magic is > more inclined to self-delusion than a practitioner of > another form of magic? than some other forms, yes, because Hermetic magic * centers on mysticism with an objective of what it identifies as 'spiritual progress' in competition with nonmagical mystical systems; this typically includes cosmological presuppositions that bear on "aeons" and hierarchal doctrines of ascension, metaphysical notions of "light bodies", etc.; * lauds a variety of individuals whose spiritual advancement is not truly subject to our observation and, in many cases, whose historical record runs completely counter to conventional notions of what 'spiritual progress' includes, explaining away deviations from this (cf. Crowley) by virtue of the 'impenetrability' of the supposed adept (compare the horrendous stories about figures like Padmasambhava and Khidr and how their violence is supposedly justified and how real historical individuals like Jim Jones pulled the wool over the eyes of their followers) and * requires a fair amount of study of abstruse and peculiar conceptual frameworks (some mentioned above, but also like Rosicrucian office-ladders, Jewish or pseudo-Jewish personal angelic tutors, etc.) that may easily deceive the initiate into thinking that understanding = progress, where in actuality what has been grasped are only the tools which are purported to lead to the ostensive goals. >>> Probably a more difficult path for a newbie (I could do with all >>> the aids to concentration that I could get!). >> >> the conventional Hermetic in alt.magick (cf. M) seems to think that >> the no-tool method is more difficult, rather than easier, > > ...When has Mika ever said or implied that [it was more difficult, > rather than easier]? unsure, I got that impression, perhaps I'm in error. I have noticed a number of Hermetics in the forum will maintain that their doing it all in one's mind is more difficult because not only is one learning the rite or spell but also focussing on the internal imagery being used. the usual terminology they use to describe the material magical tools is "props". 'prop' is a clear indicator that doing without it is harder than using it. >> and that the tools are really not necessary. to elaborate: not necessary to get (mystical) results. >> no justification is given for the purported results of the regimen descriptions of how imagination effects a mystical process, explanations as to why it is so apparent a failure in certain cases (e.g. Crowley), etc. >> and adulation suggested. glorification of the method (non-physical, imagination-magic) without a claim to success oneself and a demonstration thereof. >> taking it all on faith (achievement through works based on >> faith) seems to be the answer to 'the method of science'. > > Where have you seen that? espoused dogma about how material tools aren't necessary without an explanation of why this is the case, how they got to this conclusion, etc., has been pretty common in alt.magick. > Can you find me one example of anybody advocating or even > purporting to practice an approach based on 'taking it on faith'? presumption that Crowley was 'actually advanced' but appears to be debased appears to be easy to encounter in alt.magick. going contrary to the evidence (i.e. taking it on faith) appears to be more common than presuming him to be a failure. >>> It seems to me that in some areas of Magick (such as the Folk Magic >>> tradition that you mentioned) tools are most certainly required. >> >> folk magic is not a tradition of Magick. there are many different >> manifestations of magic. mystical magic which has as its objective >> the transcendance of the material plane with the development of >> one's "light-body" is of questionable value to the individual (do >> you have any evidence that it works? what do you hope to get out of >> it?) note that you didn't address these queries yourself. would you please? > So, compared to that approach, do you have any 'evidence' that an > alternate approach works? trying to switch the shells on me? I'd be happy to level the same criticism of Low Magic. I am unconvinced as yet that there is clear evidence that it works. I'm still watching, learning, and asking pointed questions. at the least it functions as a facilitator for obtaining the physical results desired (a psychological support). presuming that (especially mind-only magic) works from the outset without an understanding of how or some kind of evidence in that it does seems to be more common than I think valuable if one wishes to use 'the method of science'. >> and may be wholly delusional > > Oh but sprinkling foo-foo dust on somebody's doorstep certainly > couldn't be wholly delusional. could be. at least I can see a physical correlate being enacted (contact with a magical substance is established). I can understand it at least. >>for the purpose of supporting a social attention-sink. attention-getting; siphoning off attention from *actual* mysticism by virtue of controversy and competitive displacement (appearing to be the Kabbalah of Jews (or should we stick with 'Hebrews'?), for example, or the application of Indian Yoga which these Hermetic "adepts" never mastered). aka charlatanry. >>> However, am I right in saying that this is not necessarily so for >>> all branches of Magick? >> >> magic requires tools, whether conceptual or material, otherwise it >> become psychicism. > What exactly do you mean by 'psychicism'? aka conventionally 'psychism' or 'parapsychology', which typically includes things like telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc. usually it means 'those supposed skills, gifts, or abilities which enable the psychic to manipulate the world without apparent cause other than than their own mind'. there is much literature on the subject. you can find more in groups like alt.paranet and alt.paranormal. it sounds like you know what I mean but call it 'psychism'. > I definitely see a difference between magic of all sorts and the kind > of diluted versions of magic that have appeared under the scientific > aegis of parapsychic research and so on. right, these are in some ways semantic differences of terminological use. however, I maintain that if one looks into the meaning of the term 'magic', then psychicism (psychism if you prefer) is neither a qualified example (even diluted) nor is it easy to substantiate. cf. Crowley in "Moonchild" for rants on this, or the variety of Hermetics who for one reason or another didn't like psychics but did like magic. > I don't think the difference has anything at all to do with whether or > not one uses tools: scientific parapsychic research is weakened by an > implicit theory based on existing physical models into which the > phenomena are expected to fall. The inability to account for a wholly > different phenomenological model leads to a kind of 'psychism', I > guess, for want of a better word. see, I knew you'd figure out what I meant. observing the various manifestations of magic in the world I notice (whether or not they are actually effective in bringing about the desired change) that they involve symbolism. paranormal abilities usually do not. mine is a descriptive definition, rather than one based primarily on my own biases (descriptive of how those who practice what *they* call magic and explain it in theory talk about it). >>> I am trying to develop emotion/will/intent/imagination with the aim of >>> achieving greater awareness. >> >> how are you going about this? what disciplines have you undertaken? >> >>> I am hoping that this will lead to some level of insight so that >>> I will have a clearer sense of direction (hopefully this wont lead >>> to me onto a path involving expensive ceremonial ritual!!). >> >> how will you avoid self-delusion and discern that you have actually >> obtained a clearer sense of direction (what I would call 'orientation')? > > And what do you suggest? physical mysticism until discernment of what I'd call 'true will' or 'intuition' occurs. adherence to the true will or directing the predominant portion of one's intentional choice to intuition (c.f. Sinetar's "Ordinary People as Monks and Mystics" or something similar) is what I identify (as does Sinetar) as 'monasticism' that is compatible with social convention (based on my study of the expression of many mystics, both from books and in-person). > You're implying that an approach other than a non-tools approach > would provide 'an escape from self-delusion'. Explain this. there are ways that self-delusion may be avoided when the entire process and result is not analyzed internally. I am not saying there are guaranteed methods to avoid this self-delusion, only that neglecting this serious pitfall has led many an Hermetic to proclaim results where they were not justifiable given the other evidence surrounding their person. > I have suggested elsewhere that he keep records of his operations and > their results. This does not require tools, and is in fact a > technique I learned from hermetic magic. a wonderful answer. :> I have also found this kind of thing valuable, and would also recommend a thorough grounding in logical philosophy (such that conventional fallacies of logic may be discerned, for example). >>any good religion can provide you with a direction for orientation. >>why do you think it's called 'Ordo Templi *ORIENTIS*'? > It's called 'Ordo Templi Orientis' because that translates to 'The > Order of the Temple of the East'. Orientis -> East. that was a joke. :> it was also an example of utterance which was false which could be used to support an argument for Hermetic methods (sorry I didn't include the smiley :>). >> wayward souls are ripe for those who would use them. > > So you feel that not using 'tools' is going to make him more > susceptible to being taken advantage of? no, he wanted direction. obtaining this by means *other* than magic and then mistaking this result as being due to it seems to be a rather common problem in the Hermetic community. accepting a New Religion is all it takes to 'get direction'. this is not the self- described objective of many Hermetics. I think that orientation may be obtained via divinatory and mystical means, but I am here challenging the notion that one might achieve something similar just by pretending to do them in one's mind. >I'm not a cruel man. LOL! >>> ...I would like to think that Magick can be learnt and practiced >>> without any books or tools at all. >> >> what about people? do away with those too? what would make it magic? > > What does 'practicing without any books or tools' have to do with > 'what about people'? it relates to the elements of the magical practice, may enable the sounding of one's results off of those who bring critical analysis and more clear perception to the Work. thus I usually talk about 'peer review' as part of the method of science. I think there are ways to go about this peer review as a solitary, with accompanying pitfalls of this method also. > Does practicing without books or tools imply that he will have no > relation to people? not necessarily, but if one wishes to do away with anything that might cost or be challenging, then people are another element which one may choose to avoid. I was more curious here, not objecting. > Do you mean, what about interacting with other people as part > of learning? Do you mean, what about people as part of the fabric > of your work? .... yes. realistically my question is 'how far will you go in negating traditional elements of magical practice?' my correspondent understood the question and I enjoyed his response. > ...So, you're saying that 'practicing without books or tools' means > he's going to 'do away with people'? I was asking a question, not saying something. >And then 'what would make it magic?' yes, how much can one eliminate before it stops being magic, realistically? in his case I wanted his reflection on it and think it a valuable question for every mind-only mage to seriously consider. compare bowling. sure, I could imagine that I'm throwing a ball down the lanes, even bowl consecutive 300 games this way, but have I really done anything? I haven't really bowled by my standards. >>> Somehow, that seems more 'Magickal.' >> >> as a newbie, how can you tell? why not attempt to find Hogwarts? > > What is a 'Hogwarts'? Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, a fictional school of magic described within the popular 'Harry Potter' series. essentially my query is: if one is a newbie, how can one make a discernment between FICTIONAL magic (i.e. one that only occurs in role-playing games and fantasy novels) and REAL magic (therefore training our expectations to a more reliable result)? how do *you* distinguish between these, as someone who is, as far as I can tell, NOT a newbie? thanks for your challenging questions. like M (whose expression I enjoy), I welcome serious queries for clarification or as a contrast of experience. :> blessed beast! nagasiva -- emailed replies may be posted ----- "sa avidya ya vimuktaye" ----- "that which liberates is ignorance" http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html hoodoo catalogue: send postal address to catalogues@luckymojo.com
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|