Is Goetia now 'popular' ?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Now for some serious consideration:

 

What's he got against dharma protectors?

Nothing, Nungali is and is not correct:

Nothing, I presume. He was referring to their origins ... but they are okay now.


Maybe they got 'lifted up' ... on sepulchers

Nothing, I presume. He was referring to their origins ... but they are okay now: is correct, but there is more to it than this.

Maybe they got 'lifted up' ... on sepulchers : partially correct, tomb of Christian Rosenkreutz actually, by way of the Formula of the Enterer, 'Z' what I mean? (for those who lack the necessary initiatory savvy, its double entendre time, 'Z' = see, as in 'see what I mean', but also a reference the Golden Dawn 'Z' documents.) I hope to post something more serious on this.

Here is the more serious consideration and I apologize for it being a discussion in a Chinese context by observing, that I have already written this and don't have time right now to create a whole new discussion.

Now to provide some context, a few years ago a wrote a 30+ page monograph titled 'The 金光神咒: Thunder Magic Incantation or Golden Light Invocation?'

The title of its first section is 'A tale of Two Translations' one of which has received some attention here on the Tao Bums:

Thought I would include Master Ni's Golden Light Invocation here:

Golden Light Invocation:

The mysterious origin of Heaven and Earth
is the source of pure energy.
With this energy we can rectify the imbalances
and communicate with the entirety.
Within and without the three spheres of the universe,
only Tao is most revered.
From Tao I receive subtle Golden Light
to envelop and protect my body and soul.
It is so subtle that it cannot be seen or heard.
The subtle Golden Light permeates Heaven, Earth and me.
It nourishes and educates all life.
I utter this heavenly invocation with deep sincerity.
Spiritual beings gaurd me.
High deities of the Five Directions,
assist me.
Divine Immortals, kindly accept me.
The Golden Light enables me to transcend
all worldly troubles.
I am given power over all evil forces.
Enlightenment comes from the Divine Immortals
like thunder breaking the dark clouds.
The inspire the clarity and wisdom
to see through all obstacles.
My upright chi is shining and active.
May the Jade Marrow of Heaven fill my bones.
May the holy medicine of immortality grow within me.
May spiritual resources always reach me.
I truly know the holy medicine of immortality
that is colourless and flavourless.
After 10,000 repetitions of this invocation,
the wonderful secrets of all supernatural beings
will become self-evident to me.
Jade Emperor, Everlasting One of the Universe,
may your Golden Light descend and guide me.

There are some points of interest in the subsequent discussion, there is also an interesting discussion here:

Dan Tian and Daoist Mantras

The other translation is:

Hymn of the Golden Light

Mysterious ancestor of heaven and earth,
Root of the myriad energies.
Widely practiced for eons:
Guarantor of my spirit-communication.
Within the Three Realms and without,
I alone am the honored one:
Its body gives off a golden light
Which envelops and illumines my person.
Neither visible to the eyes
Nor audible to the ears,
It contains heaven and earth
And nourishes all life.
Having sung this ten thousand times
My body becomes luminous,
The Three Realms wait upon me,
The Five Emperors welcome me.
The myriad gods pay homage before me;
I put the thunder and lightning to work:
Demons and fiends lose courage,
Imps and sprites disappear.
In it dwells the thunder,
The thunder god who appears and disappears.
Universal wisdom interpenetrating,
The five energies soar on high.
Golden light, appear quickly:
Cover and protect the Perfect Man.
(John Lagerway, Taoist Ritual in Chinese Society and History, p. 86)

It started out as a comparison of the Chinese text with these two translation, but was eventually expanded to include a translation by Jerry Alan Johnson. At one point I offer my own version of a translation. One of the things which I emphasize throughout the discussion is the importance of context for understanding and thus translating the original. In my conclusion I examine the widest context, that of Daoist religious soteriology, after discussing the Divine Golden Light Incantation's relevance to the Rite of Cosmic Renewal, I continue:

The other important rite to consider is a rite of Universal Salvation two versions of which are described by Stephen Bokenkamp. One is 'The Purification Ritual of the Luminous Perfected' described in Religions of China in Practice p. 269, a ritual with a more personal orientation and the other is 'The Wondrous Scripture of the Upper Chapters on Limitless Salvation', which seems to be oriented more to general performance. This is a wonderful text which, in a broader cross cultural context that I hope to explore in future writings, can be seen as a liturgical embodiment of Plotinian metaphysics.

Bokenkamp has this to say about the Wondrous Scripture of the Upper Chapters on Limitless Salvation, 'The scripture … is, without a doubt, the most influential and widely known of the original Lingbao corpus of scriptures... in the Tang period, the Scripture of Salvation was taken as one of the three scriptures to be studied by Daoists for the official exam leading to Daoist investiture. At about the same time, some of the “celestial language” of the text, though incomprehensible outside of scriptural exegesis, entered the literary language and was used widely in secular poetry,attesting to the popularity of the scripture.... Despite the fact that, as a Lingbao scripture, it should belong to the second of the three major divisions of the canon, the Scripture of Salvation was placed first in the Ming-period canon The scripture is still recited in liturgy wherever Daoists practice.' (Early Daoist Scriptures, p. 373)

Lagerway and Bokenkamp in many ways develop this aspect of Salvation, because the later part of Lagerway's book explores the Daoist rituals for the dead, but most interestingly on p. 233-7 where he recounts a 'ritual' meditation performed for the salvation of the dead and which he considers to be the internal counterpart to the external rites which he has just expounded at length, in which the fundamental symbolism of the Scripture of Salvation occurs as an internal practice.

All of this then is part of the wider context in which all Daosit magic and sorcery must be interpreted. To the proficient Daoist even the rite of summoning the chia and ting spirits which which Saso mentions must be viewed as an act of salvational piety, because in being bound to serve the Daoist they are bound to serve the saving power of the Dao which the Daoist proficient embodies and thus the saving power of the Dao is extended even to the very devils themselves.

Which is, except for a few appendices, the conclusion of the study. The study is not finished though I would say about 95% done, so it is not available for general readership. I hope to finish it up in a few months.

Obviously the above is in a Daoist context, but I believe that it is absolutely applicable to the Western Magical context also.

More if I have time.

[SonOfTheGods]

.

Edited March 6, 2014 by SonOfTheGods

[Nungali]

.

 

 

 

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

How marvellous it all is!

 

Thank you Zhongyongdaoist, for your contributions.

...

[Nungali]

yes I think that Daoist context IS applicable to Western Magick.

 

 

" Behold He is in me and I in Him!

Mine is the radiance in which Ptah floateth over his firmament.

I travel upon high.

I tread upon the firmament of Nu.

I raise a flashing flame with the lightning of mine eye, ever rushing forward in the splendour of the daily glorified Ra, giving my life to the dwellers of Earth.

If I say "come up upon the mountains,"

The Celestial waters shall flow at my word;

For I am Ra incarnate,

Khephra created in the flesh!

I am the image of my Father Tmu, Lord of the City of the Sun!

The God who commands is in my mouth;

The God of Wisdom is in my heart:

My tongue is the sanctuary of Truth:

And a God sitteth upon my lips!

My word is accomplished each day, and the desire of my heart realises itself, like that of Ptah when he creates his works.

I am Eternal; therefore everything acts according to my designs, and everything obeys my words.

Therefore I say unto Thee: come forth unto me from thine abode in the Silence, unutterable Wisdom, All-light, All-power! Thoth, Hermes, Mercury, Odin, by whatever name I call Thee, Thou art still un-named and nameless to Eternity! Come thou forth, I say, and aid and guard me in this Work of Art.

Thou, Star of the East that didst conduct the Magi! Thou art the same, all present in Heaven and in Hell. Thou that vibratest betwixt the Light and the Darkness. Rising, descending; changing ever, yet ever the same!

The Sun in Thy Father!

Thy Mother the Moon!

The Wind hath borne Thee in its bosom!

And Earth hath nourished the changeless Godhead of Thy Youth.

Come Thou forth, I say, come Thou forth

And make all spirits subject unto me!

So that every spirit of the firmament,

And of the Ether,

Of the Earth,

And under the Earth,

On dry land,

And in the Water,

Of whirling Air,

And of rushing Fire,

And every spell and scourge of God, may be obedient unto Me! "

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2014 by Nungali

[Zhongyongdaoist]

...

How marvellous it all is!

 

Thank you Zhongyongdaoist, for your contributions.

...

You're certainly welcome. I am glad that you appreciate them.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Nungali,

Thank you for posting the Van Dusen link. There were some interesting aspects to Van Dusens observations. What many people reading it would not recognize however, is the extant to which Swedenborg's ideas are identical to and probably indebted to the tradition of the Occult Philosophy. Compare Van Dusen's account of Swedenborg's cosmos:

 

Swedenborg describes all of life as a hierarchy of beings representing essentially different orders and yet acting in correspondence with each other. The Lord acts through celestial angels, who in turn correspond on a lower level to spiritual angels, who in turn correspond to a third lower heaven-all of which corresponds to and acts into man. On the opposite side there are three levels of hell acting out of direct contact into man. Man is the free space and meeting ground of these great hierarchies. In effect, good and its opposite evil rule through this hierarchy of beings down to man who stands in the free space between them. Out of his experiences and choices he identifies with either or both sides. These influences coming from both sides are the very life of man. The man who takes pride in his own powers tends toward the evil side. The man who acknowledges that he is the receptacle of all that is good, even the power to think and to feel, tends toward the good side. In the extreme of evil, spirits claim power over all things and seek to subjugate others. In the extreme of good, angels feel themselves free in that the good of the Lord acts freely through them. Swedenborg's doctrine of the effect of spirits with man is simply the lower aspect of a whole cosmology of the structure of existence.

Such is the equilibrium of all in the universal heaven that one is moved by another, thinks from another, as if in a chain; so that not the least thing can [occur from itself]: thus the universe is ruled by the Lord, and, indeed, with no trouble (SD 2466)1. From this order of creation it may appear, that such is the binding chain of connection from firsts to lasts that all things together make one, in which the prior cannot be separated from the posterior (just as a cause cannot be separated from its effect); and that thus the spiritual world cannot be separated from the natural, nor the natural world from the spiritual; thence neither the angelic heaven from the human race, nor the human race from the angelic heaven. Wherefore it is so provided by the Lord, that each shall afford a mutual assistance to the other....Hence it is, that the angelic mansions are indeed in heaven, and to appearance separate from the mansions where men are; and yet they are with man in his affections of good and truth (LJ 9).

Wilson Van Dusen, 'The Presence Of Spirits In Madness; A Confirmation of Swedenborg in Recent Empirical Findings', p.8-9

With that of Agrippa writing several centuries earlier:

Therefore Plato, and his Schollers [scholars] attribute these vertues to Idea's, the formers of things. But Avicen reduceth these kinds of operations to Intelligencies, Hermes to the Stars, Albertus to the specificall forms of things. And although these Authors seem to thwart one the other, yet none of them, if they be rightly understood, goes beside the truth: since all their sayings are the same in effect in most things. For God in the first place is the end, and begining of all Vertues, he gives the seal of the Idea's to his servants the Intelligencies; who as faithfull officers sign all things intrusted [entrusted] to them with an Ideall Vertue, the Heavens, and Stars, as instruments, disposing the matter in the mean while for the receiving of those forms which reside in Divine Majesty (as saith Plato in Timeus) and to be conveyed by Stars; and the Giver of forms distributes them by the Ministry of his Intelligencies, which he hath set as Rulers, and Controllers over his Works, to whom such a power is intrusted in things committed to them, that so all Vertues of Stones, Hearbs [herbs], Metals, and all other things may come from the Intelligencies, the Governours. The Form therefore, and Vertue of things comes first from the Idea's, then from the ruling, and governing Intelligencies, then from the aspects of the Heavens disposing, and lastly from the tempers of the Elements disposed, answering the influencies of the Heavens, by which the Elements themselves are ordered, or disposed. These kinds of operations therefore are performed in these inferiour things by express forms, and in the Heavens by disposing vertues, in Intelligencies by mediating rules, in the original Cause by Idea's, and exemplary forms, all which must of necessity agree in the execution of the effect, and vertue of every thing. (Cornelius Agrippa, Three Books on Occult Philosophy, Vol. 1, Chapter XIII, Tyson's edition, p. 38-39)

Many more examples of similarities could easily found.

You'll find an interesting historical account from antiquity to the nineteenth-century in A. O. Lovejoys's The Great Chain of Being:

A. O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being at Barnes & Noble

[Nungali]

 

 

 

Many more examples of similarities could easily found.

 

Yes, many more ... Van Dusen lists some things that could appear in a modern or classical 'how do deal with 'angels and demons' guidelines ... he unveils several relevant points.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Yes, many more ... Van Dusen lists some things that could appear in a modern or classical 'how do deal with 'angels and demons' guidelines ... he unveils several relevant points.

 

However, modern and classical sources would classify goetia differently:

 

Some view then as psychological forces or drives, syndromes or problems . They can be seen as psychological forces projected 'outside' of the self ... or originating outside of the self.

 

Some classify them as 'good' or 'bad'

 

So ; yes and no ... working to balance the psyche is, I supposed wanting to 'get' something. But conversely, balance can mean loosing something ... or giving it up ... or sharing

 

The modern tendency is to classify Goetic forces as psychological and to view them as projected outward. This goes back to Crowley and his 'initiated interpretation of Ceremonial Magic', an essay which prefaced his own edition of the Goetia. It is Crowley who, in the early Twentieth Century starts the fashion of viewing goetic evocation as 'psychotherapy'. In this regard he is radically at variance with tradition. Israel Regardie, who started his career as Crowley's disciple and advocate refined the relationship in his The Tree of Life. In this work he made an equation with the two principle psychoanalytic schools of the period, the Freudian and the Jungian. The Freudian school was associated with goetic evocation as a means of dealing with 'repressed complexes' which were objectified by being evoked, interpreting evocation etymologically in a way much at variance with its real historical origin. The Jungian school was associated with invocation and with the idea of psychological integration based on the 'invocation' of divine 'archetypes'.

 

The etymology of 'evoke', as a calling out of oneself, is an invention of twentieth century occultists and as I have pointed out elsewhere:

 

. . . medieval evocation is the Western counterpart to Daoist military magic, of which Thunder Magic is the fundamental component. So such martial 'rudeness' is not limited to the West. Even the name 'evocation' comes from an ancient Roman military rite in which the Gods of a besieged city were 'called out' of that city and invited to join the Roman side.

 

Much at variance with the real one:

 

The Latin word evocatio was the "calling forth" or "summoning away" of a city's tutelary deity. The ritual was conducted in a military setting either as a threat during a siege or as a result of surrender, and aimed at diverting the god's favor from the opposing city to the Roman side . . . (http://Wikipedia on Evocation)

 

An etymology which I learned from the OED long before Wikipedia was even a glimmer in someones imagination.

 

Something which owes its origin to military magic is hardly likely to be a beginners practice for balancing the psyche is it?

 

If its about balancing the psych, are there more simple and quicker methods? For instance, Zazen meditation?

 

Simple, yes. Quicker, probably. Safer, definitely.

 

Why one should practice magic at all, much less Goetic evocation is an interesting question. When I was a kid starting out 50 or so years ago, I simply accepted the view of the neo-magical 'establishment' that ceremonial magic was the spiritual path of the West as Yoga was of the East and proceeded to practice it. The intervening decades have shown that matters are not so simple and that there was a great deal of stuff going on in the background to this, aside from it also being a ridiculous oversimplification. In the case of Crowley's 'Initiated Interpretation . . .', part of the background was an ongoing polemic with A. E. Waite. Waite was very critical of the whole ceremonial magic enterprise and Crowley had to find a way of defending it, thus the 'Initiated Interpretation …' was created. It has no connection with traditional interpretations and is simply the most egregious example of the incursion of reductionism into the magical tradition. Decades later Crowley characterized himself as a complete materialist about the time he wrote it.

 

The texts that are the precursors of what is now called Goetia seem to have been a single text in the Middle Ages and may have been nothing more than a catalog of spirits without any mention of techniques for dealing with them. However the Goetia was used in the Middle Ages, it was not likely to have been a beginning technique, but an advanced one. Sometime in the Sixteenth Century is was combined with several other works to create a work usually called Lemegaton or Lesser Key of Solomon. If I have time I will examine this more closely, but I will suggest now that the reason for this was to act as a set of preliminary practices which one would undertake before proceeding to the Goetia. I will further suggest that there is an even wider context in which the Lemegaton should be interpreted, and that this wider context is Agrippa's Three Books on Occult Philosophy. I have posted elsewhere on the Tao Bums about this and may try to link these posts into the discussion.

 

 

 

It depends how simple one's psyche is I suppose ... I would term zazen a passive meditation and these 'complex' practices 'active meditation ... like a 'tantric practice'

 

It is certainly like a tantric practice, but is it a tantric practice for beginners?

 

As for why to practice goetia:

 

For me, they are extremely interesting to work with . Since there are about 10 different ways to do things...

 

If an intelligent, experienced, capable and well grounded practitioner like BaquqKicksAss chooses to investigate and practice Goetia, that is good enough reason for me in and of itself, but beginners are much better off using some of those '10 different ways'.

 

Another very experienced and capable practitioner which we are fortunate enough to have here on the Tao Bums said:

 

Here is my understanding of how to approach Grimoire work safely.

 

First, if you just wanted to jump right in to Grimoire work, then work with books like Ars Paulina, Almadel of Solomon {the lemegetons fourth book} or with the Angelic or Good spirits chapter from the Grimoire you may be interested in. {if it has one}

Ars Paulina has a section specific to meeting the Angel of the degree of your own Natal ascendant Having a connection to this angel will be most useful later on when dealing with other spirits.

 

If you wish to be more cautious in your approach, consider that many {not all} schools did not begin evocation until you had done either or both the following: gained Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel ~KCHGA~ Or had made a genuine solid contact with the One {say in neo platonism} or Atum {in Hermetics} which is the same thing.

The experiences gained through achieving either of these make you sensitive to and aware of your own Being. This will be crucial later when you begin the work with the heavier spirits.

A muggle doing this stuff can have no understanding of when he is being Influenced by the Beings he is working with, and the only clear method I know of to know this is to be able to feel ones 'Being' very clearly, which will make it instantly obvious if something is trying to exert control over you.

 

If you have a more Pagan slant or just want added back up, Find a Solar deity or a wrathful Deity or both, that you feel innately attracted to, and start making friends. Make them a shrine and Keep it. Leave offerings, meditate, pray and Invoke. If the God/Goddess responds favourably you are on your way to making friends. It shouldn't need to be said, but always be totally honest with the Gods. Developing this relationship will bring many many wonderful experiences and blessings, and adds another wall of defence against problematic spirits.

 

If you have a solid connection to the One, have achieved KCHGA, made friends with some Angels, and built a solid relationship with Some Gods, and learnt some Banishing process's, you should have no fear approaching the heavier stuff.

 

 

That said, some people don't want to do all that and are attracted to the Heavy spirit work right off the bat.

 

I have seen this go.. ..badly.. but I have also seen it go well. Depends on how it is done.

 

The Heavy spirits are not all totally 'evil' but they are chaotic. A churning mass of passions, desires, fury, power and so on. Many there are totally self-centred, or nearly so.

 

Once again one needs to make friends. The Successful demonolaters I know that went straight into this path refused to see the Demons as enemy's, and you know what, {like people i guess} the Demons often respond well to that. Spending time reading through the lists, seeing which being you are attracted to working with is a start.

Taking a note from the ATR conjur traditions and making an offering to the spirit each day for a week before the conjuration tends to shift its mood towards you as well. {and removes what Lisiewski refers to as the slingshot effect} {Thanks Aaron Leitch}

Some forgo using the circle as it is aggressive and not very open. I would recommend forgoing it myself for this path but each to their own. Its a pretty ballsy move but the spirits appreciate the trust and respect.

 

It will be pretty clear fairly quickly into the Invocation if the spirit gells with you or not. If not, just cease the evocation, thank it and make offerings to it again. If you have made your weeks worth of offerings It will probably let you go no problem.

 

If it is going well, treat it with respect and reverence. Ask for ways to deepen contact with it, if you feel you would like to build that relationship.

 

 

 

My final note, I never follow the Grimoires in their instructions to order the spirits around, to threaten or try to inflict pain. I tried it with Belial, and while I had good results at first, I paid later. And it never felt natural to me, in fact it felt quite unethical.

 

And funnily enough, 'evil' beings come off as far less 'evil' when given some respect. {still dangerous and unpredictable though}

 

 

 

My final final note, is spirits are real. If you treat them as psychological manifestations of your own mind, they will resent you and things will go badly for you. Also you will continually underestimate them and their capacities...

 

a post which I seconded at the time:

 

Overall a fine post Seth. It is similar to my own experience/understanding, and generally well said. If I had chosen to post a such a guide it would have been very similar. I would have probably added some meta-level context and cross-cultural comparison, but otherwise I would have said about the same thing.

 

Unlike Crowley who could not conceal his contempt for traditional accounts, I at least do them the courtesy of trying to understand them before dismissing them. If I have time I will try to bring some of my posts elsewhere over to this thread to explicate my position.

 

Finally, while I don't particularly like the tone of this post, I have spent enough time just getting a few of the necessary points across, I just don't have time for sugar coating it now. I may post more on what I find interesting in Van Dusen, it is interesting enough to be a thread of its own.

[SonOfTheGods]

Edited March 10, 2014 by SonOfTheGods

[BaguaKicksAss]

I had started Goetia work about 5 years into my practice. Fortunately I had had a couple of teachers before then to help me figure things out with magic in general. Though the Goetia stuff didn't get strong until years later when I had a teacher for that specifically. The Enochian was quite strong at the time though, perhaps due to the help of my Enochian based teacher's help at the time. Speaking of which, Enochian is increasing in popularity as well, but not quite as sudden as Goetia for whatever reason; it has gone more slowly and gradually.

 

I have seen what happens when people start grimoire work to early on, and it isn't pretty.

 

Hmmm thinking about this, many many magicians are looking into the ATRs (African traditional religions) as well as the magic paths surrounding them. I feel this is for much the same reason they are looking into Goetia. Unfortunately though with the ATRs, it is really difficult to un-initiate, or just leave... From all I have seen they don't really have a dabbler option, or they didn't last I checked... this may have changed now though. Said reason being power, and wanting something exciting, different and unique.

 

Btw, thank you Zhongyongdaoist .

[SonOfTheGods]

I had started Goetia work about 5 years into my practice. Fortunately I had had a couple of teachers before then to help me figure things out with magic in general. Though the Goetia stuff didn't get strong until years later when I had a teacher for that specifically. The Enochian was quite strong at the time though, perhaps due to the help of my Enochian based teacher's help at the time. Speaking of which, Enochian is increasing in popularity as well, but not quite as sudden as Goetia for whatever reason; it has gone more slowly and gradually.

 

I have seen what happens when people start grimoire work to early on, and it isn't pretty.

 

Hmmm thinking about this, many many magicians are looking into the ATRs (African traditional religions) as well as the magic paths surrounding them. I feel this is for much the same reason they are looking into Goetia. Unfortunately though with the ATRs, it is really difficult to un-initiate, or just leave... From all I have seen they don't really have a dabbler option, or they didn't last I checked... this may have changed now though. Said reason being power, and wanting something exciting, different and unique.

 

Btw, thank you Zhongyongdaoist .

this guy helped start the ATR dabbler craze

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Spider-Green-Butterfly-Crossroads/dp/0615310753

[Nungali]

Thanks Donald, interersting to see your path outlined.

 

However, modern and classical sources would classify goetia differently:

 

 

The modern tendency is to classify Goetic forces as psychological and to view them as projected outward. This goes back to Crowley and his 'initiated interpretation of Ceremonial Magic', an essay which prefaced his own edition of the Goetia. It is Crowley who, in the early Twentieth Century starts the fashion of viewing goetic evocation as 'psychotherapy'. In this regard he is radically at variance with tradition. Israel Regardie, who started his career as Crowley's disciple and advocate refined the relationship in his The Tree of Life. In this work he made an equation with the two principle psychoanalytic schools of the period, the Freudian and the Jungian. The Freudian school was associated with goetic evocation as a means of dealing with 'repressed complexes' which were objectified by being evoked, interpreting evocation etymologically in a way much at variance with its real historical origin. The Jungian school was associated with invocation and with the idea of psychological integration based on the 'invocation' of divine 'archetypes'.

Although this is all valid I am looking at it in a much wider context. I read a very interesting book (but cant remember its name) about how different discoveries and new theories developed from them changed our ways of thinking and perceptual paradigms, specifically in the area of cosmology, the 'unconscious' non-human entities and 'otherworld' experiences.

 

One example was being captured and taken down into or below the earth by 'demons' as opposed to being abducted and taken up above the earth by aliens; the age of great sailing explorations - 'here be monsters' and the like, the difference between beliefs through the ages with radical cults and their behaviour and focus.

 

For me, the psychological 'outward projection' view needed to happen. Traditional, classical or not I see no one approach as 'right'. And this more modern approach is somewhat dated itself now. Things have moved on ... in my studies of the subject matter.

 

The etymology of 'evoke', as a calling out of oneself, is an invention of twentieth century occultists and as I have pointed out elsewhere:

 

 

Much at variance with the real one:

 

 

An etymology which I learned from the OED long before Wikipedia was even a glimmer in someones imagination.

 

Something which owes its origin to military magic is hardly likely to be a beginners practice for balancing the psyche is it?

No it isnt. Thats one of the points of this post; why is it popular. Some other site I was discussing this with someone who thought to start ( start mind you) practicing magic , but felt uncomfortable about the " invoking demons stuff ". ? ? ?

 

I hope anything I wrote didnt come across as advocating this as a beginners approach to balancing the psyche. I was answering why I found it useful.

 

Simple, yes. Quicker, probably. Safer, definitely.

 

Why one should practice magic at all, much less Goetic evocation is an interesting question. When I was a kid starting out 50 or so years ago, I simply accepted the view of the neo-magical 'establishment' that ceremonial magic was the spiritual path of the West as Yoga was of the East and proceeded to practice it. The intervening decades have shown that matters are not so simple and that there was a great deal of stuff going on in the background to this, aside from it also being a ridiculous oversimplification. In the case of Crowley's 'Initiated Interpretation . . .', part of the background was an ongoing polemic with A. E. Waite. Waite was very critical of the whole ceremonial magic enterprise and Crowley had to find a way of defending it, thus the 'Initiated Interpretation …' was created.

I am not challenging you here, but do you have a ref or link for that (I have recently been talking about Waite's view on this and was told that he never wrote about it ? I was told it was all one sided and challenged to produce anything Waite wrote on the matter ... specifically wrote about it that is. I do realise that the Waite version of GD he later developed seemed more mystical than practical.

It has no connection with traditional interpretations and is simply the most egregious example of the incursion of reductionism into the magical tradition. Decades later Crowley characterized himself as a complete materialist about the time he wrote it.

 

The texts that are the precursors of what is now called Goetia seem to have been a single text in the Middle Ages and may have been nothing more than a catalog of spirits without any mention of techniques for dealing with them. However the Goetia was used in the Middle Ages, it was not likely to have been a beginning technique, but an advanced one. Sometime in the Sixteenth Century is was combined with several other works to create a work usually called Lemegaton or Lesser Key of Solomon. If I have time I will examine this more closely, but I will suggest now that the reason for this was to act as a set of preliminary practices which one would undertake before proceeding to the Goetia. I will further suggest that there is an even wider context in which the Lemegaton should be interpreted, and that this wider context is Agrippa's Three Books on Occult Philosophy. I have posted elsewhere on the Tao Bums about this and may try to link these posts into the discussion.

Yes, its in my Library ... its been a while since I did a complete reading. Often ideas I have voiced, I have been told are rubbish ... (usually to do with astrology and star lore) later when reading through 3 books I come across it ; 'That's where I picked that idea up from'! It probably influences me more than I am aware of.

It is certainly like a tantric practice, but is it a tantric practice for beginners?

No ... I keep thinking I must have advocated this as a beginners practice somewhere ?

 

As for why to practice goetia:

 

 

If an intelligent, experienced, capable and well grounded practitioner like BaquqKicksAss chooses to investigate and practice Goetia, that is good enough reason for me in and of itself, but beginners are much better off using some of those '10 different ways'.

 

Another very experienced and capable practitioner which we are fortunate enough to have here on the Tao Bums said:

 

 

a post which I seconded at the time:

 

 

Unlike Crowley who could not conceal his contempt for traditional accounts, I at least do them the courtesy of trying to understand them before dismissing them. If I have time I will try to bring some of my posts elsewhere over to this thread to explicate my position.

 

Finally, while I don't particularly like the tone of this post, I have spent enough time just getting a few of the necessary points across, I just don't have time for sugar coating it now. I may post more on what I find interesting in Van Dusen, it is interesting enough to be a thread of its own.

 

Yes, but as I said above I feel both views are somewhat dated now ... obviously I am also an advocate for Harpur's view (which may not be 'new' so much as 're-integration' of previous concepts ? ) to be thrown into the mix.

 

 

I wont get into the large subject of whether most observed phenomena is a consciousness projection 'outward' or has its own external validity projected 'inwards' ... I leave that up to the Buddhists ... however ; to quote our old favourite English chap

 

" In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.

 

It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them. "

Edited March 10, 2014 by Nungali

[Nungali]

this guy helped start the ATR dabbler craze

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Spider-Green-Butterfly-Crossroads/dp/0615310753

 

My interest was started by this woman:

 

Edited March 10, 2014 by Nungali

[SonOfTheGods]

My interest was started by this woman:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUROKcDOvvk

 

Susanne Wenger

 

 

[Nungali]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aussie version :

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Thanks Donald, interersting to see your path outlined.

 

As far as I am concerned you have only a few data points, nothing that I would call an outline of my 'path'.

 

Although this is all valid I am looking at it in a much wider context. I read a very interesting book (but cant remember its name) about how different discoveries and new theories developed from them changed our ways of thinking and perceptual paradigms, specifically in the area of cosmology, the 'unconscious' non-human entities and 'otherworld' experiences. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

You may be referring to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, a book which I read in the mid 1970s, though I was interested in the history, method and epistemological structure of science since my teens and in particular how they impacted my interest in magic. At the very least you are referring to some work influenced by his work. What seems to me to be the best overview of Thomas Kuhn can be found here:

 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Thomas Kuhn

 

I am afraid that I took the notion of 'the method of science' far more seriously than little Eddie Alexander ever did. Receiving a revelation from a praeter-human intelligence and founding a magical/religious cult around a 'Book of the Law', is not my idea of what scientific method is all about and frankly, I didn't care about the aim of religion part at all.

 

No it isnt. Thats one of the points of this post; why is it popular. Some other site I was discussing this with someone who thought to start ( start mind you) practicing magic , but felt uncomfortable about the " invoking demons stuff ". ? ? ?

 

It is popular because of little Eddie Alexander's Goetia edition, a work which rips it out of a carefully constructed context, creates a context in which it is primitive neuro-anatomy, and by making it a means self-development, implicitly puts it close to the beginning of training.

 

I hope anything I wrote didnt come across as advocating this as a beginners approach to balancing the psyche. I was answering why I found it useful.

 

Well, you did not specify it as being for advanced practitioners, or even intermediate ones, but seemed only interested in defending it as a practice in general.

 

I am not challenging you here, but do you have a ref or link for that (I have recently been talking about Waite's view on this and was told that he never wrote about it ? I was told it was all one sided and challenged to produce anything Waite wrote on the matter ... specifically wrote about it that is. I do realise that the Waite version of GD he later developed seemed more mystical than practical.

 

That the 'Initiated interpretation of Ceremonial Magic' has Waite in mind is illustrated by his name being mentioned specifically in the discussion of the powers of the spirit Cimieries, point two, 'the destruction of enemies', in a parenthetical comment, Waite is pointedly upbraided for misunderstanding that 'the destruction of enemies' is a blind for a sublime truth, though why gaining compassion to let go of animosity should be hidden under 'the destruction of enemies' is a mystery of too high a level for me, and then told that 'he who sees muck is muck'.

 

As for Waite's negative attitude, there is abundant evidence in his writings and as Leslie Shepard notes in his introduction to the University Press edition of Waite's The Book of Ceremonial Magic, Waite '. . . looks upon Ceremonial Magic as not only futile, but denies any real distinction between white and black magic and considers it all vain and wicked.' This book was a later version (1913) of Waite's The Book of Black Magic and of Pacts, Crowley was probably upset by this book, published in 1898.

 

By the way, as a matter of passing interest, I bought my copies of Waite's Book of Ceremonial Magic and Crowley's Magick in Theory and Practice within a week of each other in the summer of 1963, when I was twelve years old:

 

How old of an old school it is can be gleaned from the fact that this summer marks the fiftieth anniversary of my making the acquaintance of “that guy Dantalian” aforementioned. Yes, fifty years ago as a lad of twelve I bought A. E. Waite's The Book of Ceremonial Magic.

 

Nowadays that might not seem unusual, but in those old pre Harry Potter days it definitely marked one out as rather odd. In those ancient pre internet times you also actually had to go to a bookstore! Yes, a real brick and mortar bookstore, preferably large ones with bookshelves that went high over the head of adults much less kids, such as myself, the heights of which could only be scaled by ladders which could be repositioned along the shelves.

 

Books like Waite's and Crowley's Magick in Theory and Practice, which I bought the next week, always had prices of $10.00 printed on the dust jacket, but in practice were always marked down to $4.95. This seems modest today, but correcting for inflation since 1963, it's more like fifty or more of today's dollars. (By the way, this post has some interesting things to say about good old Dantalion and Plotinus and is worth a read. ZYD)

 

I must assume that you are referring to Agrippa's Three Books here:

 

Yes, its in my Library ... its been a while since I did a complete reading. Often ideas I have voiced, I have been told are rubbish ... (usually to do with astrology and star lore) later when reading through 3 books I come across it ; 'That's where I picked that idea up from'! It probably influences me more than I am aware of.

 

 

Yes, but as I said above I feel both views are somewhat dated now ... obviously I am also an advocate for Harpur's view (which may not be 'new' so much as 're-integration' of previous concepts ? ) to be thrown into the mix. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

With all due respect, if you are referring to the idea that Agrippa and the classical tradition is dated, your posts have not shown me any indication that you have the necessary background to make an informed judgment in the matter. In my earlier post, I should have said that Agrippa should be interpreted within the context of Platonism as represented in the works of Plato, and yes, Aristotle too, since he contributed ideas which the MIddle Platonists assimilated, Plotinus, Iamblichus Proclus and others, as anyone reading it in Agrippa's time would have done. Read in this context Agrippa absolutely delivers what he says he will:

 

But you that come without prejudice to read it, if you have so much discretion of prudence, as Bees have in gathering honey, read securely, and believe that you shall receive no little profit, and much pleasure . . . (Emphasis mine, ZYD, Agrippa to the Reader)

 

I adopted Platonism as a meta-paradigm circa 1980 for reasons related to what already amounted to many years of work and research into history and philosophy of science and the history of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity, Qabalah, Hermeticism, Hellenistic Philosophy and yes, even shamanism, as part of my background research for understanding the real historical context in which magic should be interpreted. After over thirty years of fruitful use of it, I see no reason to consider it dated in anyway. It is still a superior approach to anything of which I am aware and I am aware of a lot more than I get the impression you think I am.

 

I wont get into the large subject of whether most observed phenomena is a consciousness projection 'outward' or has its own external validity projected 'inwards' ... I leave that up to the Buddhists ...

 

Most discussion about inward and outward are still framed in the mistaken notions of Descarte and Locke. Ideas which lead necessarily to Berkeley and Hume, 'enlightenment' materialism, Kant and the Romanitic reaction against materialism. In short to the mess in which we find ourselves now. The greatest clarity I found in this matter is in the Platonists. Buddhists analysis is flawed by the necessity to defend certain doctrines at all costs.

 

however ; to quote our old favourite English chap

 

" In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.

 

It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them. " (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

You must be referring to yourself and your OTO buddies. If only Crowley had lived up to this 'exalted sentiment' in regard to The Book of the Law, maybe he could be a favorite of mine too.

[BaguaKicksAss]

I am happy that I read the grimoires (and Agrippa for that matter) long before Wait's rendition thereof said grimoires .

[Nungali]

Donald ... do I get a right impression that you have become somewhat annoyed about some of my posts and responses?

 

I already acknowledged previously that I appreciate your learning and ability to pass that on with relatively clear communication ...actually, you inspired me in my first few days of posting here to read more of the classics ... which I have only done a little of so far. And because of ( the limited amount of) your posts I have read I always look forward to your ideas ... which I consider learned ... when I see a post from you about a subject that interests me, I will happily read it.

 

So some of your comments like " It is still a superior approach to anything of which I am aware and I am aware of a lot more than I get the impression you think I am" , " You and your OTO buddies ", and ... make me think I have dissed you somehow or something that you hold valuable ?

 

No ... I don't have 'OTO buddies' my buddies, at this stage of my life and interests ... my 'magical buddies' that I have at the moment ... are Aboriginal shamans, initiated elders and guardians .... and I consider their outlook 'dated' ... up to 30, 000 years ... but that doesn't mean it automatically invalidates it , the same as when I gel with them and get to a deeper level of my 'modern outlook' we see it as different ways of looking at the same things, and different approaches that might be used in different ways.

 

But then again ... it is often hard to detect a proper tone in forum posts.

 

I dont mind the lack of sugar coating at all ... carry on .... I just dont want you to think that I don't value your input , into what I am still learning about/