• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Magick: What's The Point?

Re: A Blunt Response No Doubt Destinted To Be Bowdlerized

FraterLibre said:
This is Buffyism at its finest, and nonsense. I shan't excuse you for this, no. Fact is, magical thinking isn't magic, and the "method" is either self-delusion or no big secret. If it makes you feel more important, though, by all means continue to mystify yourself.

Riiiiiiigt. So you're magic(k) is all growed up and Niles' is all childish?

I'm sorry, but it's all rediculous. I don't care weather it works or not, it's still planly redicuouls. I'm amazed that any fortean 'Beleives' this stuff. I don't believe it, even though I have been knowen to use the odd sigil and they certainly seem to work.

It's no more worthy of our 'belief' than science and a whole lot less provable.

I think it's redicuouls when schools of magic(k) quarrel. I agree that Robyn's ryhm is childish, but if she likes ryhms then fine. And I don't see why Niles reverse curse idea is any less likely than the rest of this stuff.

What's wrong with it Frater? Is it not Crowlean enough for you? Is it not 'proper' magic unless you get to dress up and f*ck a goat?

Cujo
*edit*(sorry about the spelling, I'm a new mum and though I can tell a lot of this is spelt wrong I'm far too tired to work out how to correct it)*edit*
 
Q.E.D.

I'm in disagreement with no one, nor in argument.

Do as you will.
 
Hmmm....yes, well then................

If we can get back to discussion rather than bitchcraft.......;)

The Wiccan rede "An it harm none, do as thou will" suggests that to cause harm to anything or anyone is out of the question - but it's never that simple is it?

The idea of using a curse for a beneficial purpose at first glance seems outlandish and a tad foolhardy, but how can we judge whether a certain situation merits such a course of action?

Would it be wrong to cause harm to someone or something to prevent a greater harm from occurring?

No one can answer this other than the practitioner who is involved:
Is it worth the risk?
Is it the 'right' thing to do?
Will it create negative karmic repercussions?

If it sits well with you and you can answer satisfactorily to all the above, why not do it?
 
Will with bits sticking out of it.

93,

There's always going to be problems with these kind of e-xchanges. I would say it's because this is not a magick list and people post some incredible trash, but there's plenty of bitching and ignorance on the magick lists as well. <sigh>

So, onwards!

'And it harm none do as ye will' is obviously a reworking of AC's (via rabelais) 'Do What thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law, Love is the Law, Love under Will'

To me the tacked on 'harm' bit seems to be a limiting factor to deflect bad publicity. Dear Gerald G doing the 'hey we're witches, but not bad witches' bit.

Many of my best friends are wiccans etc etc and this debate has been done to death elsewhere. If the rede works for you then I have no quarrel. I simply think the 'harm' clause is unnecessary, you are either doing your Will, or you aren't.

So, let's have a look at the operating protocol:

>No one can answer this other than the practitioner who is >involved:

Agreed.

>Is it worth the risk?

If it is your Will then risk is not a factor. Choosing the correct tool or technique would be my preferred take on this.

>Is it the 'right' thing to do?

I'd say is it in conformity with your Will. But I think we've got the same idea here.

>Will it create negative karmic repercussions?

If it is in accordance with your Will then this question gets knocked out cold. The Magickian acting in harmony with his or her Will is in balance with the universe.

Of course the 93 million dollar question echoing through the Aethyr is What is my Will?

Good to see discussions moving on the board, even if things get a bit crispy now and again.

93 93 93

Peter Grey
 
The Key Problem

The key problem lies in discerning good from bad, harm from benefit. Anyone who thinks they can know this is walking hubris.

As for discussions like this, it was going along very well until the magical thinkers, who actually think in supernatural and cartoonish terms, get their backs up, having had their cherished delusions threatened. It wasn't anyone's intention to do so, but if they honestly believe saying some spell has remote affects, beyond the simple vibrations they create with their voices, then they delude themselves. Hence the Buffyism remark; that's what it is, the result of the infection of popular entertainment's exagerations on how people think.

Magick is will applied to the world, to physics. Nothing supernatural about it whatsoever. All else is subjective, solipsistic, or just silly. One uses spells and incantations and so on to focus will and raise personal energies so that one can then take physical, real steps toward accomplishing the goals. Some goals are easy -- type this note, drink this water. Some are middling difficult -- buy a new car, don't fight so much with the wife. Some are damned nearly impossible -- find a Unified Field theory, cure cancer. Only physical actual work toward these magical goals will amount to anything. No amount of muttering, spellcasting, or other shamanism will matter without the real effort.

This is how magick works. No kidding.

Why this gets some people so snippy and mean-spirited, I don't know, but I do know that primates aren't the nicest of animals on this planet. Human nature; you've got to laugh to keep from crying sometimes.
 
The wayI see it-yes there is magic,its in everything and everywhere,stronger some places and in some things than others. But purposefully using it? You want a decent job or partner you improve yourself,find out about yourself,learn things and try to be a better person,and these things come to you naturally,forcing it with spells is just a cop out,beyond wishing yourself a bit of luck you don't need to use magic. It should work for you without concious effort. ( yes I have learned this through [in]experience!)
 
Re: The Key Problem

FraterLibre said:
Magick is will applied to the world, to physics. Nothing supernatural about it whatsoever. All else is subjective, solipsistic, or just silly. One uses spells and incantations and so on to focus will and raise personal energies so that one can then take physical, real steps toward accomplishing the goals. Some goals are easy -- type this note, drink this water. Some are middling difficult -- buy a new car, don't fight so much with the wife. Some are damned nearly impossible -- find a Unified Field theory, cure cancer. Only physical actual work toward these magical goals will amount to anything. No amount of muttering, spellcasting, or other shamanism will matter without the real effort.

This is how magick works. No kidding.

If it just comes down to this - that magic is just 'doing things', something everybody in the world does all the time, why is there even a name for magic? Surely there would have to be something more to magic than this for it to be a subject worth speaking about?
 
Where'd the Magic Go?

I wasn't trying to make the point that it's "just doing things". lol Certainly not. If it worked this way then anyone who wanted would "magically" be a rock star, President, or CEO, we'd all be beautiful, rich, and famous, we'd all be celebrities memorialized for all time in pyramid and song, etc.

Oh no, there is no "just" about it at all, and learning one's self well enough actually to focus and apply genuine will is a long, painful process few bother with. It requires removal of illusion and ego, etc.

There is much more to magic/k than can be discussed. It must be experienced. That's part of the key.
 
Hmmm.
FraterL I think your previous post
Only physical actual work toward these magical goals will amount to anything. No amount of muttering, spellcasting, or other shamanism will matter without the real effort.
seemed to be saying that for example applying magic(k) to e.g. getting a new job would consist of reading the job ads in the paper, getting your CV in order, getting your best suit out of mothballs etc and what Stevo was saying is why would that be called magic(k), why would the concept of magic(k) even exist when it is no different from what anyone would do to get a job (in this example):
Surely there would have to be something more to magic than this for it to be a subject worth speaking about?

As I interpreted what you said (and I am probably wrong) you meant that some form of magic(k)al operation alone cannot work without you also putting in the physical effort ... so that there is no point doing a "spell" (in vulgar parlance!) to get a new job if you are just going to sit on the settee at home watching the news and make no material moves towards getting a job, you have to do that business with the job ads and the CV and the suit as well .....?

And/or perhaps that the magic(k)al operation is "merely" a way of "burning in" to one's consciousness the desire to attain the goal (the new job in this case) so that the conscious and subconscious mind and any other bits you may like to break the self down into act in unison thus giving you the strength and motivation to achieve it?

And/or perhaps you mean that magic(k) as a lifelong process of personal development and betterment puts you in a position to lead a harmonious life and know what you are about sufficiently to be able to achieve what you Will ... in which case you'd be in the right job already :D ?

These are all very psychological models of magic(k) ... and I could have misinterpreted you completely of course :confused:

But your renaissance mages, for example, whose works a lot of later occultism is based on, did not seem to share this "personal empowerment" view of magic(k) ..... their work was a fantasical bestiary of external forces and entities who could be bribed, cajoled or threatened into performing all sorts of handy tricks ... and I know occultists today who work entirely in this way: and while every single one of them would no doubt tell you that if you want a new job you do have to look through the job ads and update your CV etc etc they firmly believe that if they can persuade e.g. Bethor to intercede on their behalf ("he raiseth to very great dignities, to cast open treasures"(Arbatel of Magic 1575)) he, a genuine external force, will fool around manipulating reality for them and MAKE it happen.

Which is quite "supernatural" really ..... :monster:

(edited for sense and increased smily abuse!)
 
Can't Be Helped

lizard23 said:
Hmmm.
FraterL I think your previous post

seemed to be saying that for example applying magic(k) to e.g. getting a new job would consist of reading the job ads in the paper, getting your CV in order, getting your best suit out of mothballs etc and what Stevo was saying is why would that be called magic(k), why would the concept of magic(k) even exist when it is no different from what anyone would do to get a job (in this example):

---Can't help what you choose to think but do you honestly think that's how easy it is to get a job? Interpret what I wrote as you will, it's your choice.


As I interpreted what you said (and I am probably wrong) you meant that some form of magic(k)al operation alone cannot work without you also putting in the physical effort ... so that there is no point doing a "spell" (in vulgar parlance!) to get a new job if you are just going to sit on the settee at home watching the news and make no material moves towards getting a job, you have to do that business with the job ads and the CV and the suit too .....?

---Yes, exactly so. A spell alone is simply not going to do much for anyone.

And/or perhaps that the magic(k)al operation is "merely" a way of "burning in" to one's consciousness the desire to attain the goal (the new job in this case) so that the conscious and subconscious mind and any other bits you may like to break the self down into act in unison thus giving you the strength and motivation to achieve it?

---Nope. Here you are choosing the atheistic materialistic psychological view, one I laughingly reject. There are more things...

And/or perhaps you mean that magic(k) as a lifelong process of personal development and betterment puts you in a position to lead a harmonious life and know what you are about sufficiently to be able to achieve what you Will?

---I can live with this bit, sure.

These are all very psychological models of magic(k) ... and I could have misinterpreted you completely of course :rolleyes:

---You'll get dirt on them, rolling your eyes like that. Now put them away and behave yourself.

But your renaissance mages, for example, whose works a lot of later occultism is based on, did not seem to share this "personal empowerment" view of magic(k) ..... their work was a fantasical bestary of external forces and entities who could be bribed, cajoled or threatened into performing all sorts of handy tricks ... and I know occultists today who work entirely in this way: and while every single one of them would no doubt tell you that if you want a new job you do have to look through the job ads and update your CV etc etc they firmly believe that if they can persuade e.g. Bethor to intercede on their behalf ("he raiseth to very great dignities, to cast open treasures"(Arbatel of Magic 1575)) he, a genuine external force, will fool around manipulating reality for them and MAKE it happen.

Which is quite "supernatural" really .....

Sure, if taken literally, as you seem determined to do. However, decoded, they say pretty much what I'm saying. Hell, you can look it up.
 
Prankster Other

Now, if you choose instead to switch discussion from magick to the Prankster Other, we can then discuss whether or not there is only human primate intelligence or whether there might be at least one Other.

The answer here seems to be Yes, there is at least one Other, an intelligence not human, not primate, and not of this earth / reality / dimension.

It's downright scary.

Ah, but is it supernatural? Despite being mislabeled so by many prior folks, it does not seem these days to be anything but natural, if completely mystifying. After all, it's been around as long as our history has, and this hints it's been with us all along.
 
lizard23 said:
seemed to be saying that for example applying magic(k) to e.g. getting a new job would consist of reading the job ads in the paper, getting your CV in order, getting your best suit out of mothballs etc and what Stevo was saying is why would that be called magic(k), why would the concept of magic(k) even exist when it is no different from what anyone would do to get a job (in this example):


As I interpreted what you said (and I am probably wrong) you meant that some form of magic(k)al operation alone cannot work without you also putting in the physical effort ... so that there is no point doing a "spell" (in vulgar parlance!) to get a new job if you are just going to sit on the settee at home watching the news and make no material moves towards getting a job, you have to do that business with the job ads and the CV and the suit too .....?

I think that's it in a nutshell. The magic work helps you focus on doing what needs to be done, i.e. getting a decent shave, dropping off resumes, actually looking. If you put it out that you're looking for a job, being out where a job might come into your awareness makes it more liklely to happen.

My point is that there comes a point where you realize (at least, I did,) that the "spells" you use for a specific end are more of a detriment than a benefit. According to that mindset, you need to do spellwork in order to accomplish something. And, if you need the speels to trick your subconscious into doing things to make it happen, then more power to you. However, it seems to me like it is going about things backwards.

To my mind, everyone is already intimately connected to everything else, and working towards a specific goal via magic is redundant, as the magic is supposed to make a connection with the larger forces in the universe to acheive a goal. You're already connected to the larger forces, so magic work (spells, ritual, athames and what not) really shouldn't be needed to get things done. I've had much better results with simple meditation and focusing on my self in order to affect change than I have with years of ritual work and spellcraft towards goals. It doesn't feel as forced and unnatural as getting decked out in full regalia and chanting in a langauge you don't know.

Some people say that ritual and spells and stuff are a crutch, but I prefer to think of them as orthopedic shoes. At some point, they really need to come off.

Charles
 
My determination in matters of personal belief is extremely weak ;) .... I don't buy the
atheistic materialistic psychological view
either, and the most I can say about the literal interpretation of dealings with external entities is that it seems to be useful to think that way when working that way .....
.... just casting about for opinions really ......
 
Odd Mind State

Lizard - True, one must be in an odd frame of mind wherein one does take literally what one knows to be the unliteral, in order better to deal with these entities and so on, but it's all a way of thinking, rather like higher math notation, etc.

Whereas the Prankster Other simply isn't to be trusted.
 
I personally am undecided on this internal/external reality of entities thing, and a little hung up on it I'm afraid, inspite of a rough grasp of the "as above, so below" concept of self-as-universe. But then I sometimes have trouble deciding if objectively verifiable "real" things are real or not ;) ..... and it's all an ontological minefield anyway ..... which probably accounts for my interest. :)

The prankster seems to be a fairly commonly occuring archetype in mythology and folklore and is often seen to be quite menacing ..... I'm interested to hear your thoughts .... do you regard this force/being/intelligence/consciousness to be a true "other"? The only "other"? Is it deliberately unpleasant (for its own amusement as the name suggests) or simply so "other" that it doesn't give a stuff about the likes of us?
 
Otherness & Us

lizard23 said:
I personally am undecided on this internal/external reality of entities thing, and a little hung up on it I'm afraid, inspite of a rough grasp of the "as above, so below" concept of self-as-universe. But then I sometimes have trouble deciding if objectively verifiable "real" things are real or not ;) ..... and it's all an ontological minefield anyway ..... which probably accounts for my interest. :)

The prankster seems to be a fairly commonly occuring archetype in mythology and folklore and is often seen to be quite menacing ..... I'm interested to hear your thoughts .... do you regard this force/being/intelligence/consciousness to be a true "other"? The only "other"? Is it deliberately unpleasant (for its own amusement as the name suggests) or simply so "other" that it doesn't give a stuff about the likes of us?

Like you, I just don't know. My best analysis is that it's 95% psychological but 5% "real" -- what ever the hell that means. Ontological minefield and all that.

Yes, the Prankster is common as mythic archetype, which is why I refer to the Horla, the Imp of the Perverse, and so on, as the Prankster Other -- to remind us not to trust it. It's traditionally a sucker's bet to trust it. It leads us into temptation, then doom.

Alien Dawn by Colin Wilson is an excellent recent book covering this sort of thing. Fascinating stuff in there, ranging from gnostic secrets and notions of gods and devils, angels and demons, to UFOs, ghosts, Mothman, and beyond, up to and including Alistair Crowley's encounter with something -- he never quite decided if it was real or not -- and space alien archetypes from today's abduction experiencers.

Prankster Otherness, all of it. And you're right, often quite menacing indeed.

Not sure if it's the only one, (let alone if it's real), and not sure if it's deliberately malicious, although it sure seems to be at times. Look at Heaven's Gate or Jonestown and you see its handiwork.

This discussion has split, incidentally, if the monitors want to set up a new thread. Matters not to me, as it flowed from a discussion of magick.

Good stuff.
 
Re: A Blunt Response No Doubt Destinted To Be Bowdlerized

FraterLibre said:
This is Buffyism at its finest, and nonsense. I shan't excuse you for this, no. Fact is, magical thinking isn't magic, and the "method" is either self-delusion or no big secret. If it makes you feel more important, though, by all means continue to mystify yourself.
No, you just chose to place a narrow minded interpretation on what was an otherwise intentionally obscure post. In other words you didn't understand my point and thus chose to mock it and insult me. This is understandable; most people, when confronted by something they fail to comprehend frequently feel moved to dismiss and disparage it. After all I made a post which seemed to be a depict a direct process but which was, in fact, allegorical and abstract.

Robyn then chose to grant an extra clue to those who may have an interest in the process to which I refered. An arrow pointing in the direction of further research; yet again not a process but a signal and signpost.

That was the intent. the result was certainly more of Robyn than of Niles; the information contained within it is potentially dangerous enough that I'm still reluctant to disseminate it publicly. Thus our slightly mocking tone, to disuade investigation.

ibid
As for discussions like this, it was going along very well until the magical thinkers, who actually think in supernatural and cartoonish terms, get their backs up, having had their cherished delusions threatened. It wasn't anyone's intention to do so, but if they honestly believe saying some spell has remote affects, beyond the simple vibrations they create with their voices, then they delude themselves. Hence the Buffyism remark; that's what it is, the result of the infection of popular entertainment's exagerations on how people think.
As for Magical Thinking; I think you'll find it to be the foundation upon which magic is built (hence the term). It is the language of the subconcious wherein everything is symbolic of something else as the mind interconnects your experiences in a grand web of correspondences. Thus it seems childish and cartoonish because it's the childish and cartoonish part of your psyche wherein the key to the Will can be found. Fail to grasp this basic principle and it is little wonder that your workings have no impact beyond the personal.

ibid
Magick is will applied to the world, to physics. Nothing supernatural about it whatsoever. All else is subjective, solipsistic, or just silly. One uses spells and incantations and so on to focus will and raise personal energies so that one can then take physical, real steps toward accomplishing the goals. Some goals are easy -- type this note, drink this water. Some are middling difficult -- buy a new car, don't fight so much with the wife. Some are damned nearly impossible -- find a Unified Field theory, cure cancer. Only physical actual work toward these magical goals will amount to anything. No amount of muttering, spellcasting, or other shamanism will matter without the real effort.

This is how magick works. No kidding.
Both accurate and wildly off the mark. Although material effort is a result and requirement of many workings (hence "workings") there are those occasions in which a working carried out to effect another (often without their knowledge) apparently has the desired effect.

If all magic does is raise "personal energies" then it is my deduction that healings and curses become meaningless and your following request...

FraterLibre said:
Niles - It seems you're altering the traditional notion of "curse" when you speak of using one as healing, but I think I see what you're getting at. Can you, however, so we're clear, offer an example?
...would constitue Trolling, since Healings and Curses don't exist in your philosophy and your intent was thus to assault. If I'm mistaken and they do indeed exist in your world view then I'd be more than interested in your explaination.

IMHO to discount the wider effects reported and experienced by other practitioners (as you have repeatedly done) is in iteself a brand of unhealthy solipsism. Furthermore it contradicts other posts made by yourself during the same period in which you speak of the interconnectiveness of all things and the concept of a conciousness surviving the death of the physical body. Furthermore it discounts developments in the sciences with regards to chaos theory (wherein a small change in one system can have an escalating effect in another, apparently unconnected, system) and quantum physics (with regards to conciousness as a quantum process and the structure of the continuum as a quantum processor).

I'm afraid that I currently can't provide links to back these claims due to time constraints.

It is not my intent to dismiss your personal philosophy but I do feel that you are missing a wider point, one of co-operation between the Will and the wider Universe.

As for the "Cosmic Joker", I think you'll find your error is in your persistant use of the word "Other" when describing it. It is not an Other it is You. Specificly your "inner child" (sorry the Jungian term escapes my dictionary) whom you so blatently dismiss and ride rough-shod over. No wonder you find it to be "untrustworthy".

Although by definition the "Cosmic Joker" is untrustworthy it also gets everywhere. Thus you have to work with it and befriend it. Then, although you'll still be the butt of many of it's gags, you'll find them a lot more funny as will those close to you, although not so to the casual observer. Life with the "Cosmic Joker" is very tiring but FUN!

For the more direct answer as to how to use 'karmic backlash' to empower a 'curse':

Take a 'mundane' negative act that your target has done (preferably to you), turn it into a magical one. Any backlash due should then strike your target since you've already been effected by the 'curse'. Thus if the 'mundane' act was a beneficial one the 'curse' can in fact be used to heal. It can also be used to teach an objective lesson. Another healing.
 
Think First

Magick is predicated upon working one's will upon the world. This means one must first see the world without illusions of ego or other deception. Then one must envision clearly what one wants to accomplish. Imagination is the root of working one's will. Once a goal is clearly in mind, action, physical action, must be taken pursuant of the fulfillment of that goal. This is how magick works. Nothing to do with wishful thinking, rhymed spells or incantations, nothing to do with ceremony or ritual -- those things are all used in order to focus the Mage's mind and body for the work. Talk of unleashing forces and conjuring demons and whatnot are metaphors for what happens during a magick working.

On a rudimentary level, slaking one's thirst by lifting the stout to one's lips and drinking is an act of magick. On higher levels it explains why some reach the heights of accomplishment in a given field of endeavor despite huge odds against them. On still other levels it explains how some very few of us can become enlightened souls, even saints.

So see clearly and imagine well, then act accordingly. Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law. Love under Will.
 
I am inclined to think that the 'magic' involved in a simple 'curse', rhyming or not, is more of an example of a modern construct than anything else. Why? Because it's the 'quick&easy' approach, almost a cliche in itself too. Or, if it's not all that modern, it's more like 'folk magic', and one could argue whether that's effective or not (or it's just little rituals woven around mundane effects that ween't understood, i.e. dock leaves for nettle stings). I think magic would've become like this much sooner if it was a natural progression - but if you look at the history of the subject, the whole point about magical operations is the rituals themselves, some of which can be very arduous and time consuming. It seems to me that the more modern approach can sometimes be like what Frater Libre calls 'Buffyism' - that is, it's all a quick fix, say a few magic words out of an old book and voila!. It cuts out the whole ritualised aspect of magic, which IMHO is the essential part because of the effect it has on the imagination and therefore the Will. And this effect itself is part of the process for the magician themselves and their understanding of the process as much as it is for the cause and effect of the magic on the exterior world.
 
Why do people even need the pices of paper, coloured candles etc. I never have, it works whether they're there or not so I've never bothered. Is there anyone who knows who came up with the idea of things meaning stuff anyway?
 
Tools, Rituals, Ceremonies, Robes, Incense, Music, Chanting - all those things act as methods to help focus, concentrate and to put oneself in 'the right frame of mind'.

I rarely use anything but incense and a couple of pieces of 'special jewellery' - it all comes fairly naturally to me and for that I'm thankful - I can't be doing with pomp and ceremony - IMO it clutters everything up and detracts rather than attracts concentration.
 
Hehe - the 'pomp and ceremony' bits are supposed to focus you and your imagination. Distractions may not be a result of the ritual itself but down to the person performing them ;)
 
FraterLibre, beautiful post and one I agree with whole heartedly. That said I do not believe that any human being can truely perceive the Universe without the cloak of interpretations our minds place upon it. The "Illusions of Ego" as you so aptly put it.
(Please excuse me but there are no words in my vocabulary to describe these concepts and so I must descend to arguing in semantics to make my point. After all physical language is an artefact of ego and it's shadowplay; that is, in essence, my point...)
To discard Ego one must discard any notions of "ME", "MYSELF" and "I". But without "I" there is no "I" to Will. To paraphrase yourself; "One" cannot accomplish anything for "One" is an aspect of ego.

That said there is a part of the psyche that does exist without ego, in fact it is the element that inflicts the aformentioned deceptions upon us. It communicates it's observations to us in these "childish" and "cartoonish" terms as these are the only terms we understand. That is why, Palthera, "...Things mean stuff...". We communicate with and receive communication from the 'Hermetic' "God-Self"[*] in the form of metaphores and similes.

Thus to perform a working we communicate our desire to the "God-Self" in these terms, placate it through ritual and then enact our Will through it. Think of the communication between an infant and parent. The parent uses simple terms and notions that the infant can barely understand. The infant in turn can only communicate through grunts and gestures to make it's desires known. But of the two it is the infant who enacts the Will, whos desires are, eventually :rolleyes:, met. Thus we are the infant to the "God-Self's" parent. Our rhymes and wishful thinkings become enactions of our Will upon the universe.

Of those who do gaze upon the universe without illusion most cannot bare it and step back from it, typically insane from the experience. A rare few instead step forward, transending humanity and becoming something else entirely; think of Buddha as a prime example of this.

[*]"Have you forgotten that you are all gods?"; attributed to Hermes Trimagestus (Hermes the Trice Great) but also seen elsewhere including the Bible. Of course it's not particularly Hermetic, nor is it a "god" nor is it, by definition, a "self". But it is an aspect of our psyche and has practically godlike power over us, at least in magical terms...
 
No Diapers Needed

Niles - Excellent parallel and image. Very clear.

And yes, I agree with you that we can hardly ever eliminate all Ego, and if we do then there is no "I" left with which to Will anything. That's part of the Zen experience of Empty Vessel, of simple Being. There is no Willing needed, in such states, because during them we are One with All.

And yes, this is ineffable and language inadequate to express it, due to the Platonic Shadowplay you cite so elegantly.
 
"ME", "MYSELF" and "I".

wasnt that by de la soul?

ive always thought that bad things happen to bad people

ive been made redundant,had bad accidents etc but for some reason ive never had a bad thing happen,as all of these things seemed in the end to point me in the right direction .

for every bad thing ive done i seem to pay a higher price

but that price is always better for me in the long run

so ......

why is it i am always lucky even when im not?
 
Samsara Club

de la Soul by way of Mr. Crowley, by way of ancient lines of thought and with a side-trip through Gurdjieff land, yes.

And then there was "I, Me, Mine," by the Beatle Harrison.
 
Re: Think First

FraterLibre said:
Magick is predicated upon working one's will upon the world. This means one must first see the world without illusions of ego or other deception. Then one must envision clearly what one wants to accomplish. Imagination is the root of working one's will. Once a goal is clearly in mind, action, physical action, must be taken pursuant of the fulfillment of that goal. This is how magick works.
So magick is thinking about something you want, figuring out how to get it, then going out and getting it.
 
JerryB said:
Hehe - the 'pomp and ceremony' bits are supposed to focus you and your imagination. Distractions may not be a result of the ritual itself but down to the person performing them ;)

Yeah, It says a lot about me and the way that I work!
I always find that simplest is best - but I always have had trouble concentrating! :D
 
Back
Top