What's REALLY possible from Magic/Magik/Magick? What have you achieved?

[Nungali]

I haven't seen any valid points made against my argument. Only a bunch of wishy washy want to live in a supernatural magic land arguments. Some of you don't seem to have a grip on reality and logic.

 

I would define magic as "supernatural phenomenon".

 

I would define supernatural as "something that does not have a natural, scientific, and logical explanation for its existence."

 

If any force, phenomenon, process, event, etc. exists in our reality, then it does indeed have a natural and scientific explanation behind it. It can't just exist with no cause or explanation.

 

There may be what would be considered "multiple realities" but in actuality it only be a part of the larger (who knows how many dimensions) reality. It wouldn't be a "different" reality. Just a different dimension.

 

The supernatural doesn't exist, so therefore neither does magic according to the definition I gave.

 

When did this thread get to be about the 'supernatural' anyway? Seeing your definitions and explanations, I think I see the issue:

 

I dont believe in the the same god that you dont believe in either.

[Nungali]

IF the definitions you state are accepted, KenBrace, I largely agree with you.

 

I think you are mistaken in the assumption that everything is answerable by science. Science itself contradicts that assumption, in fact. The conclusion built on it -- that everything is science -- is thus flawed on two counts. This line of reasoning is self-referential and egoistic -- it is the bugaboo within scientism/materialism/physicalism/etc.

Yes, there is a distinction between science and scientism.

 

I agree with you (or at least with what I think you are saying), though, that "supernatural" is sort of a silly word to be used within the context of a forum dedicated to Tao. Lots of Bums have expressed dissatisfaction with that term over the few years I've been here.

 

Seems to me that there is a perpetual struggle within our community to find ways to express the nuances of energetic events within the flow, to differentiate those improbable manifestations which sometimes occur "out of the blue" but which also "follow" some people from the more familiar manifestations of the "mundane everyday world." (All my quotation marks rather than intending to indicate attributions.) There are people, of course, who view the totality as one massive stochastic process and who also believe an individual has only a small mechanical influence on that process -- these people do not recognize that differentiation.

Thats why I like the 'Daimonic Reality Theory' ... although it may be a band-aid trying to hold the two halves together.

 

 

 

By defining magic as supernatural, however, and then defining supernatural as something unnatural and then defining everything to be natural, you have intentionally constructed a self-serving syllogism which really just says "KenBrace doesn't believe in magic" rather than proving your point.

 

 

Scientism.

[Nungali]

Scientism - " The term is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge."

 

"It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality andknowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;

 

"It is used, often pejoratively, to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source ofmeaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

 

" According to Stenmark, the strongest form of scientism states that science has no boundaries and that all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor, with due time, will be dealt with and solved by science alone." [my emphasis] - there is that 'time travelling scientists' again!

 

" Science can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists,Marxists and similar religious movements; and... non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so... Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science... In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.

— Feyerabend, Against Method,

 

" Philosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[KenBrace]

IF the definitions you state are accepted, KenBrace, I largely agree with you.

 

I think you are mistaken in the assumption that everything is answerable by science. Science itself contradicts that assumption, in fact. The conclusion built on it -- that everything is science -- is thus flawed on two counts. This line of reasoning is self-referential and egoistic -- it is the bugaboo within scientism/materialism/physicalism/etc.

 

I agree with you (or at least with what I think you are saying), though, that "supernatural" is sort of a silly word to be used within the context of a forum dedicated to Tao. Lots of Bums have expressed dissatisfaction with that term over the few years I've been here.

 

Seems to me that there is a perpetual struggle within our community to find ways to express the nuances of energetic events within the flow, to differentiate those improbable manifestations which sometimes occur "out of the blue" but which also "follow" some people from the more familiar manifestations of the "mundane everyday world." (All my quotation marks rather than intending to indicate attributions.) There are people, of course, who view the totality as one massive stochastic process and who also believe an individual has only a small mechanical influence on that process -- these people do not recognize that differentiation.

 

By defining magic as supernatural, however, and then defining supernatural as something unnatural and then defining everything to be natural, you have intentionally constructed a self-serving syllogism which really just says "KenBrace doesn't believe in magic" rather than proving your point.

How would you define "magic" Brian?

[BaguaKicksAss]

OK so last night I made a talisman from an old grimoire, to get rid of flies. It was a fun group project where we all made talismans. It was a simple version of the actual talisman since I used fimo "clay" . However I can't resist a good experiment. It is summer afterall, and we don't use screens on our windows.

 

So today I saw some flies in my room, got it out and they left. Well nothing odd about that, could just be chance. So I brought it with me into the kitchen for lunch. I was having a steak for lunch and didn't want the little buggers landing on it. In this hot weather you sometimes have to shoo them away over and over again. They left my steak alone . There were about 3 in the kitchen when I walked in. While I was eating, I looked around and only saw one way across the room and heard another but could not find it. Well it was worth making the talisman just to have my lunch in peace. I got full before I had finished the steak, so it was time for the ultimate test! I left the room for a bit to see if there would be some all over it when I came back. Amazingly enough there weren't any . There was one in the kitchen, but it was flying *around* the steak giving it a wide berth. I checked a couple of times.

 

Anything more important than seeing if I can reduce flies in the kitchen in summer, I don't post in public, but thought this experiment might be interesting .

[nine tailed fox]

you can make someone fall in love with you

 

this one is very popular actually

[Nungali]

Nah ... science has proved how to do that

 

 

 

Like button *

Dont like button *

Vomit button *

Edited August 1, 2014 by Nungali

[BaguaKicksAss]

you can make someone fall in love with you

 

this one is very popular actually

 

Yes that is easy enough on most people.

 

But why?

 

I'm arrogant enough to feel that someone should like me already, for how awesome I am, without coercion . Though I'm one of the few who doesn't wear padded bras either (so hard to find non-padded ones in the stores, holy hell!)

[ॐDominicusॐ]

personally:

know 2 people who manifested the lotto. The first won 18 million, his wife then left hjim and took half and both daughters became spoiled idiots, and now no one in that family talks to each other. 2nd woman won a 500k smaller lotto and everyone in her family came out of the woodworks asking for money and when she didnt give anyone anything, they all created hatred around her and refused to talk her since then.

 

Personally, I've used techniques to get a girl I wanted, who didn't want me, and then she caved in and came to me saying, "I don't know why, but I felt the biggest urge to come to you." Well granted to say, careful waht you ask for because once I was with her, it wasn't what I thought it would be. Lots of horomonal/emotional roller coaster ride, dr jeckyl and mr hide had nothing on her.

 

I would say a lot more cause the stuff works.....but once you get what you're aiming for, then it comes with its own set of issues.

 

One woman I knew begged to go into Enlightenment and eventually got there via some transmissions, and the screamed and cried to give her back her "I".....and when she got her "I" back, realized she wanted nothing to with enlightenment anymore.....

 

Careful what you ask for

[thelerner]

I love science and the scientific method, but if it gets too dogmatic, it betrays itself. At the bounds of rational and scientific thought we need to keep a certain open cautiousness about what is possible. Otherwise we're in danger of stagnating, closing out the possibility of new tools and understanding.

 

To me such 'open cautiousness' Is using the scientific method. The willingness to let go of preconceived beliefs; try something new, afterward stepping back over the line and assessing the experience.

[Green Tiger]

How would you define "magic" Brian?

 

Heh. Definitions. So Aristotelian.

 

Behold: MAGIC!

 

[Brian]

How would you define "magic" Brian?

I'm not a practitioner so...

 

 

I guess I'd say magic is a term used to reference a style of techniques used to energetically influence events, generally employing incantations, charms, potions, etc., as well as interacting with spirits. It seems to me that magic has developed (or at least been cultivated) in many civilizations throughout time -- perhaps most -- and that the similarities between cultural varieties make them identifiable.

 

What, you may have asked, do I mean by "used to energetically influence events?"

 

Never forget that ALL the energy & matter in the entire known universe represents less than 5% of the matter & energy scientists now believe must be out there.

 

Think about that for a moment...

 

Science is saying 95% of reality is currently beyond our ken in terms of the very nature, composition and properties of the types of matter and energy we are even talking about. (No pun intended, KenBrace! It just came out that way.)

 

Dark energy accounts for 68.3% of "what we know there is" and dark matter accounts for another 26.8%, leaving only 4.9% for all that we can name.

 

Ions, electrons, photons, leptons, tachyons, quarks, baryons, protons, neutrons, the elements hydrogen through ununoctium, star power, black holes, quasars, you name it -- literally less than the tip of an iceberg. (That's about 10%...)

 

One thing we're pretty sure of, though, is that it isn't all clumped up in a corner far away somewhere.

 

We've existed alongside of it since the beginning and our interactions with this "unknown" side of the universe did not need to wait on science to catch up before they developed any more than was the case with use of fire, for instance.

 

 

 

Or something like that...

<shrug>

[Nungali]

 

 

We've existed alongside of it since the beginning and our interactions with this "unknown" side of the universe did not need to wait on science to catch up before they developed any more than was the case with use of fire, for instance.

 

 

 

Yes. And when science does eventually 'discover' some of these old principles, it takes the credit ... it doesnt say "Hey, those guys were right all along!"

 

I am actually a fan of science ... as long as it is not " used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality andknowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;" and " used, often pejoratively, to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain.

[allinone]

from The Surangama Sutra commentary from Venerable Master Hsuan Hua

 

 

Dreams happen when the sixth mind-consciousness goes awry.

Whatever happens to you during the day, or whatever experiences

you encounter, will affect the dreams you have at night. Some

people who cultivate the Way, cultivate the mind-consciousness

until they can “go out esoterically and enter mysteriously

( ). To “go out esoterically” means to send a being out of

the crown of one’s head. This being can then leave the body and go

elsewhere. But this experience is not genuine, because the being is

a “yin spirit.” Since, when it gets out, it has a certain amount of

awareness, it is called a spirit.

 

 

 

Once there was an old Taoist who really was skilled in his

practice, but he had a big temper. Whenever anything came up, he’d

get angry about it. Since he got angry all the time, he was indulging

in hatred. He considered himself to be well-skilled, however – to be

pretty remarkable, in fact. He boasted that as soon as he went to

sleep, he could send out this spirit. It was like a dream-state, but he

had an awareness of it and could remember it clearly afterward.

One day, the old Taoist encountered a Buddhist monk, and they

discussed their methods of cultivation. The Taoist said, “In Taoism,

we can cultivate and become immortal. What talent do you

Buddhists have? Shakyamuni Buddha died just the same. But no

one knows where the Patriarch of Taoism, Lee Lao Chun, went. He

died, so they say, but really he went to the heavens. So the skill we

develop in Taoism is to ‘go out esoterically and enter mysteriously.’”

“How do you go out esoterically? asked the monk.

“When I lie down and go to sleep, I can go anywhere I please,”

the Taoist replied.

“Oh? Fine. Go to sleep now and send out a spirit while I watch.”

said the monk.

The old Taoist laid down and went to sleep, and as soon as he

dozed off, he let out a spirit. But what kind? It was a snake that

crawled out of the top of his head! The snake slithered off the side

of the bed onto the floor and crawled outside to the edge of the

cesspool. It drank some of the dirty water and then crept along the

edge of the water. The monk picked a blade of grass and set it in the

path and then pulled up a clump of sod and set it beside the blade.

When the snake saw the blade of grass, it fled in fright and scurried

back where it had come from. Having reentered the crown of the

Taoist’s head, the old cultivator awoke in a sweat, scared to death.

“Where did you go,” asked the monk, “when you went out the

top of your head?”

The Taoist replied, “I went to the heavens to a heavenly pool.”

He had mistaken the cesspool for a heavenly pool. “When I got to

the heavenly pool, I drank some sweet dew water, and then, as I

strolled around, I saw a spirit in golden armor standing in the path

wielding a sword. He was intent upon killing me, so I rushed back.”

The monk said, “Oh, so that’s what happened, according to you;

you went to the heavens.” And then he informed him that his

perception of the incident was totally different from the Taoist’s,

and he related what he’d seen. “The reason a snake came out of

your head is probably because you have such a big temper and are

always getting angry. If you don’t change your fiery nature, you’re

likely to become a snake. Snakes have poison in their hearts, and

your hatred is just like a poison in you right now.”

The monk continued, “You went outside and drank a lot of

liquid from a cesspool filled with urine and excrement. That is your

heavenly pool with sweet dew water! And when I put a blade of

grass and a lump of sod in your path, you thought it was an armored

spirit out to get you. That’s when you hurried back and reentered

your head. That’s what I saw.”

The old Taoist thought: “Then everything I have cultivated is

totally wrong!” So he bowed to the monk as his teacher and

followed him to cultivate the Buddhadharma. He gave up indulging

in his former skills. So, if people tell you they can leave their body

during their dreams, it is a yin spirit they are referring to. This yin

spirit will mirror your own disposition; if you are a compassionate

person it will be a compassionate spirit; if you are an angry Person,

or a greedy person, it will be like that. That’s why it’s said of

people,

With a single thought of hatred,

Eighty thousand obstacles arise.

The old Taoist had such a temper that he could transform into a

snake. Thank goodness he met a monk who saved him and kept him

from having to become a snake in some other life.

[Seth Ananda]

Hmm, the Tibetan Buddhists continue to bag the Taoists as being caught up and obsessed with the subtle phenomena, while trying to pretend that they are different, all while they spend heaps of time developing Illusory body, that they may 'survive' death with memories in tact, so as to have longer to attain...

[sunchild]

Hmm, the Tibetan Buddhists continue to bag the Taoists as being caught up and obsessed with the subtle phenomena, while trying to pretend that they are different, all while they spend heaps of time developing Illusory body, that they may 'survive' death with memories in tact, so as to have longer to attain...

 

"we're different i promise!"

 

"we'll show you the Truth, i promise!"

[BaguaKicksAss]

Hmm, the Tibetan Buddhists continue to bag the Taoists as being caught up and obsessed with the subtle phenomena, while trying to pretend that they are different, all while they spend heaps of time developing Illusory body, that they may 'survive' death with memories in tact, so as to have longer to attain...

 

This is what I was thinking from that quote, but not as eloquently as you put it .

[Silent Answers]

Same on all sides ... There's always a story or parable taking jabs at opposing (slightlyyyy different) views.

 

Taoists vs Confucians vs Buddhists

 

The cancer of belief... Hence the formation of scientific ideals that first set out to prove things once and for all - to carve out a path that can be spoken of with certainty. But as we all know, that too falls victim to almost religious-like followers.

 

All research funding should be spent on understanding why people just can't help falling into that trap, to stop us from tripping up....

 

As I write this though, it becomes clear that without the selfishness, the self wouldn't exist... Individuality perishes and the whole point of the game is lost.

 

Wow! Well that went off topic!

[Nungali]

Tibetan Buddhists not being caught up and obsessed with the subtle phenomena ;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiOW72TBf3U

[Seth Ananda]

I mean no disrespect to the Tibetans either.

I just find a certain sense of irony here. The Taoist term 'Immortal body' seems to be so concerning to the Buddhist's 'Impermanence' and 'no self' frame works. They grumble about subtle attachment, trying to live forever and clinging and such, then go and do the same thing but call it 'Illusory body' instead, in the hope that the name change will aspire less attachment and clinging...

 

Here is my "Illusory, dependently arising, everlasting indestructible vehicle of neither eternal nor nihilistic Immortal consciousness!"

Edited August 4, 2014 by Seth Ananda

[Satya]

Query for all you magic beings here:

 

In your opinion is it:

A: possible to tap into the akashic field (or whatever you want to call it) and obtain ANY information/knowledge/skill?

 

B: how do you do this?

 

I'm sure it's no low level practice, but, once cracked, arguably it would cut down on a lot of reading

References/books/techniques, etc, appreciated.

[Nungali]

Query for all you magic beings here:

 

In your opinion is it:

 

A: possible to tap into the akashic field (or whatever you want to call it) and obtain ANY information/knowledge/skill?

 

B: how do you do this?

 

I'm sure it's no low level practice, but, once cracked, arguably it would cut down on a lot of reading

 

References/books/techniques, etc, appreciated.

 

 

[Satya]

That's kinda the idea.

 

The human bio-electric code has pretty much been 'cracked' so to speak, so we can send information in and out, which is amazing for prosthetic arms, eyes, you name it:

 

So we're actually not that far off this, BUT, even when it's available, I'd be dubious about going near such a machine, incase it resulted in me getting trapped in a prison of the mind (or something else going wrong).

 

Some think we're already in a computer simulation,

 

 

 

 

"According to some, it's not possible, it's probable. A Oxford professor of philosophy Nick Bostrom's paper, “Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?” concludes that one of three possibilities must be the case:

1. Humans do not survive long enough to create and run ancestor-simulations.

2. Even if they do, they might choose not to.

3. If not 1 or 2, then| any entity with our general set of experiences is almost certainly living in

a simulation.

Bostrom states:

If we are living in a simulation, then the cosmos that we are observing is just a tiny piece of the totality of physical existence. The physics in the universe where the computer is situated that is running the simulation may or may not resemble the

physics of the world that we observe. While the world we see is in some sense "real", it is not located at the fundamental level of reality." From Mckenna, The Theory of Everything

 

 

 

[Satya]

I'd prefer to tap into the Akashic Records.

[BaguaKicksAss]

I'd prefer to tap into the Akashic Records.

 

There's lots of newage weekend workshops to help with that...