invocation of earth elemental

the atlas itch

Hi gmumble, I'm working with several other people from varying traditions so it will take a while to prepare the groundwork. But I will keep you posted.

After studying Ritual No. 8, it seems the operator needs two main things for a successful evocation:

The ability to easily access the astral plane as well as the focus and visualization powers to manifest and materialize thought forms.
Having a clear telesmatic image of Ghob while performing the evocation.

The more I think about it, the core of the evocation is in the above formulation. The rest of the ritual apparatus - the right incense, colors, offerings, candles, sigil, etc - are simply external props to put the operator in the right mindset.

This leads to questions about the Triangle of Art wherein the evoked entity is supposed to manifest and the Magickal Circle. After discussion with several people, I am seriously requestioning the traditional view that the Triangle and Circle protects against unwanted spiritual forces.

My questions are:

Does the Triangle truly "contain" the evoked entity or is the real function to "constrain" the operator's consciousness within the Triangle?
Does the Circle truly "protect" the magician from unwanted forces or is the real function to center and exalt his consciousness during the operation - where the actual "protection" lies in the *raising of *consciousness?

The traditional idea that a Triangle or Circle drawn on a floor can block out spiritual forces, which are ever-present and everywhere, seems like childish superstition. This leads to the third question:

Does the magician's mere utterance/vibration of divine names, without necessarily having the ability to rise on the inner planes to the appropriate level, exert power nonetheless over manifested spiritual entities during rituals? That is, for the attracted spirit - regardless of whether it is "out there" or manifestation of the magician's mind - does the sound or vibration of the divine name itself contain power and authority over it? Or should the magician's usage of various divine names in operations ***always be ***backed up by his ability to rise to the appropriate plane of the name - and, if not, he risks danger?
Last of all, has anyone heard of any practitioner who, by his or her own abilities to rise on the inner planes, discovered various divine names and mapped out hierarchies on their own, without consulting 777 or various other resources?

Thanks for feedback.

Jim Eshelman

@he atlas itch said

"My questions are:

Does the Triangle truly "contain" the evoked entity or is the real function to "constrain" the operator's consciousness within the Triangle?"

Fair question... but, to return fair for fair, I need to ask you: What difference would it make in practice if it were one vs. the other?

An important part of the triangle's symbolism is that it is manifesting. It's a geometric form that tends to materialization. OTOH, it has been effectively used for centuries (longer?) as a containing field, and I hold that the magician, for safety reasons, needs the containing field. (Exceptions: Masters of the Temple who - to put it one of several possibnle ways - "bring the triangle with them.?)

"2. Does the Circle truly "protect" the magician from unwanted forces or is the real function to center and exalt his consciousness during the operation - where the real "protection" lies in the *raising of *consciousness?"

Raising and, even more importantly, controlling one's consciousness are sufficient, but few people can do it sufficiently. Involving other people makes this even more difficult - random thoughts can derail the entire process.

The circle serves another important role in the process. It accentuates duality. An almost paranoid sense of "what is in the circle" vs. "what can't get into the circle" is powerful magick. Besides stirring some of the lower-bandwidth emotional force on which evocation rides, it especially creates the dualism that is basic to the technique of the evocation. (Evocation is, per se, an enforced dualism.)

"3. Does the magician's mere utterance/vibration of divine names, without necessarily having the ability to rise on the inner planes to the appropriate level, exert power nonetheless over manifested spiritual entities during rituals?"

Experience proves decisively that magicians incapable of consciously awakening to Atziluth and Briah can effectively establish a well-anchored hierarchy by use of Atziluthic and Briatic names.

Were this not true, then there would have been almost no successful evocation in the history of the world, because there have been almost no people in the history of the world capable of consciously awakening to Atziluth; and those who have, generally haven't been interested in evocation.

One could suggest various theories about this, but I think the above empirical argument is the better answer.

"That is, for the attracted spirit - regardless of whether it is "out there" or manifestation of the magician's mind - does the sound or vibration of the divine name itself contain power and authority over it?"

The Hebrew "words of power" have always given me every indication of having intrinsic power over consciousness and its manifestations on various planes. (I think it is linked right into our DNA as a true root system of human consciousness - not at all "just another system.")

"Or should the magician's usage of certain divine names - Assiah, Yetziratic, Briatic, Atziluthic - ***always be ***backed up by his ability to rise to these inner planes - and, if not, he risks danger? "

The question implies the actual ability to do so. I submit (as above) that almost nobody can. Certainly one must reach as high (as deep) as one can - the struggle with this seems to have intrinsic value - but resting it on the ability to reach that goal is futile - especially since evocation has generally been the approach of the lowest, least developed of magicians throughout history.

the atlas itch

@Jim Eshelman said

"Fair question... but, to return fair for fair, I need to ask you: What difference would it make in practice if it were one vs. the other?"

The difference between form vs essence and realizing to which aspect one needs to devote more time and energy to perform a successful operation.

One person might draw the Triangle correctly, sealing off the edges, and perform the evocation perfectly...but without any visible manifestation of Ghob. This would be a case of getting the form right, but not the essence of the evocation.

On the other hand another person who has strong powers of concentration and visualization and easy access of the astral plane might accidentally manifest Ghob in his room without performing a evocation ritual – simply by thinking about the entity. This would be a case of essence over form. In fact its a fairly common experience for ordinary people to unexpectedly “see” entities in their room.

I’m not advocating getting rid of the Circle and Triangle. Rather I am trying to understand their actual functions with regards to successful magick.

@Jim Eshelman said

"An important part of the triangle's symbolism is that it is manifesting. It's a geometric form that tends to materialization. OTOH, it has been effectively used for centuries (longer?) as a containing field, and I hold that the magician, for safety reasons, needs the containing field. (Exceptions: Masters of the Temple who - to put it in one of several ways - "bring the triangle with them.")"

That’s interesting to hear about the geometric form.

@Jim Eshelman said

"The circle serves another important role in the process. It accentuates duality. An almost paranoid sense of "what is in the circle" vs. "what can't get into the circle" is powerful magick. Besides stirring some of the lower-bandwidth emotional force on which evocation rides, it especially creates the dualism that is basic to the technique of the evocation. (Evocation is, per se, an enforced dualism.)"

I can understand using dualism as a technique but I'm having problems reconciling dualism itself with Crowley's assertion that spirits, demons, angels and gods are aspects of the Mind. Would it be fair to say that the magician, while knowing reality is all One, nonetheless uses the circle to create the fiction of duality in order to focus and sublimate energies toward a desired end and that the climax of the ritual is when the psychological barriers between self and Other is transgressed, generating the desired effect? Would that be an accurate summary?

My reading of the above is based on Ritual No. 8 where the *operator himself *appears to be the origin of the manifestation of Tiriel – hence the importance of using the ladders method and Colors Scale to raise consciousness and having a clear telesmatic image of Tiriel prior to the climax.

This would suggest to me that intense desire, fear and love are key catalysts for successful operations – opening the pathways to areas of consciousness normally not experienced. It recalls Crowley’s admonition to unite one’s consciousness passionately with the consciousness of others.

Jim Eshelman

@he atlas itch said

"I can understand using dualism as a technique but I'm having problems reconciling dualism itself with Crowley's assertion that spirits, demons, angels and gods are aspects of the Mind."

I have a couple of things to say about that. (Neither one takes a position on what the nature of the entities actually is.)

First, I place no authority on it. At that point in time, he wasn't even an adept (in the A.'.A.'. sense of things) - he was roughly what, today, we'd call a 3=8 and quite caught up in rationalism. This says nothing about whether his opinion was correct - it just puts that particular 1903 opinion in perspective.

Second, if that p.o.v. IS correct, then my original point is even more relevant. If the spirit is actually an aspect of one's mind, then it may take additional steps to force perception to the idea that it is an objective "other." (That's the whole point of evocation. If you just wanted to experience it AS part of your own psyche, there are other means. Evocation is "get it perceptible outside of me and objectified as OTHER.")

"it be fair to say that the magician, while knowing reality is all One, nonetheless uses the circle to create the fiction of duality in order to focus and sublimate energies toward a desired end and that the climax of the ritual is when the psychological barriers between self and Other is transgressed, generating the desired effect? Would that be an accurate summary?"

Broadly, yes.

Except... most magicians do not "know that reality is all One." They have an intellectual idea about it, or, at best, once upon a time they had an experience that (in the moment) convinced them of it - but, sitting down to do an evocation, most magicians do not know this (a matter of direct perception). - And, I would dare say, that those who actually know it from here-and-now perception will equally know that it's a matter of definition in the moment.

In any case, yes, the magician needs to be flexible enough to adopt the point of view that is useful to the operation at hand. Sometimes that means picking the carrots out of the chaos of the vegetable soup of the soul and setting them on a side plate. (Usually one shaped like a triangle. )

"My reading of the above is based on Ritual No. 8 where the *operator himself *appears to be the origin of the manifestation of Tiriel – hence the importance of using the ladders method and Colors Scale to raise consciousness and having a clear telesmatic image of Tiriel prior to the climax."

The operator certainly creates the conditkions of Tiriel's manifestation to the operator. One of these is the alignment with the hierarchy of Mercury, which gives the authority to compel the appearance. Another is preparing the suitable body for the immaterial Tiriel's incarnation.

"This would suggest to me that intense desire, fear and love are key catalysts for successful operations – opening the pathways to areas of consciousness normally not experienced. It recalls Crowley’s admonition to unite one’s consciousness passionately with the consciousness of others."
"

There is a step in most ritual magick called "the moving of the astral light." In brief, if you, yourself, are not moved by the working, then... nothing else will be moved either.

Shadow Self

"This would suggest to me that intense desire, fear and love are key catalysts for successful operations – opening the pathways to areas of consciousness normally not experienced. It recalls Crowley’s admonition to unite one’s consciousness passionately with the consciousness of others."

See, I always thought that is entirely incorrect. You must lose the lust for result, otherwise your magick won't have results.

the atlas itch

Acting without lust for result does not mean acting without lust - or whatever strong emotion necessary. As Jim noted, if you are not moved, chances are, nothing else will be moved. In my experience strong emotional investment generates powerful results.

the atlas itch

@Jim Eshelman said

"Another is preparing the suitable body for the immaterial Tiriel's incarnation"

Prior to the operation, was the vital fluid charged with the intent to have Tiriel visibly manifest or Tiriel's telesmatic image before pouring it on the charcoal?

Jim Eshelman

@he atlas itch said

"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Another is preparing the suitable body for the immaterial Tiriel's incarnation"

Prior to the operation, was the vital fluid charged with the intent to have Tiriel visibly manifest or Tiriel's telesmatic image before pouring it on the charcoal?"

No. It was just raw life-fluid, dropped straight from the wound on a finger. (I kept a medical lancet on hand in those days - the sort of thing a diabetic uses (sterile) to draw blood.)

Lavir

@he atlas itch said

"Acting without lust for result does not mean acting without lust - or whatever strong emotion necessary. As Jim noted, if you are not moved, chances are, nothing else will be moved. In my experience strong emotional investment generates powerful results."

There's a personal thing I've noticed concerning this. In my case the "enflame thyself" is not properly the agent evoking it is the mean to come to that point. It comes a point when emotion is - how I can explain it... maybe: "absorbed"? - and the result is a ruthless, cold state and that's the agent evoking, not the emotion(s) to come to that point.

Naturally this can change depending on the type of force you "connect" with; since I'm not much interested in evocation I've not tried different "channels".

The only evocation I performed was when I was very young using the Goetia and the link to the "power" was done via The Bornless One and the Goetia scripts. The first time I had no manifestation at all (while using a lot of emotion), in the second attempt, however, what I explained before happened (i.e. the emotion was "absorbed" in that cold, ruthless state) and then I had a very strong manifestation (in fact I almost pissed in my pants and I never tried it no more for the fear; now that fear has naturally passed but I am not interested in it no more - but I'm digressing )

I noticed this also when I perform art, in some cases. When I approach the canvas, in painting, the first "manifestation" is tied to emotion but then it comes a plateau that's beyond emotion and that's what creates art for me. If I cannot get to that plateau the result will be all another thing (and it's strictly linked to how strong that "link" is, also from a strictly technical aspect). At that point there's a flow, a sort of "communication", fuel is no more needed (and on the contrary it is counterproductive). At that point it's sort of like what Crowley describes in Samekh, e.g. your mental, astral and physical consciousness are somewhat absent so it's not more a state of emotion in the literal sense.

This is what I noticed in myself. I think that the key to do these things must be discovered and for anyone it can be different, I don't know. As I said, then, it can also depends on which type of force you connect to, to evoke.

the atlas itch

@Lavir said

"When I approach the canvas, in painting, the first "manifestation" is tied to emotion but then it comes a plateau that's beyond emotion and that's what creates art for me. If I cannot get to that plateau the result will be all another thing (and it's strictly linked to how strong that "link" is, also from a strictly technical aspect). At that point there's a flow, a sort of "communication", fuel is no more needed (and on the contrary it is counterproductive). At that point it's sort of like what Crowley describes in Samekh, e.g. your mental, astral and physical consciousness are somewhat absent so it's not more a state of emotion in the literal sense."

That's interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

the atlas itch

From Levi's Dogma and Ritual ("The Triangle of Pentacles" and "Conjuration of the Four"):

On the Triangle:

Within the grand circle of evocations a triangle was usually traced, and the side
towards which the upper point should be directed was a matter for careful observation.
If the spirit were supposed to be from heaven, the operator placed himself
at the top, and set the altar of fumigations at the bottom; but if the spirit came
from the abyss this method was reversed.

QUESTION:
Given earth elementals come from the abyss, should the Triangle be drawn outside the Circle with the base of the Triangle closest to the Circle or should it be reversed with the point of the Triangle closest to the Circle?

On the Kerubic Signs of Elementals:

Bull = Gnomes who are commanded by the sword
Lion = Salamanders who are commanded by the bifurcated rod or magic trident
Eagle = Sylphs who are commanded by the holy pentacles
Water-Carrier = Undines who are commanded by the cup of libations

QUESTION:
Why is sword (air) used to command Earth while pentacles (earth) are used to command Slyphs?

Jim Eshelman

I think the main point to get from this is... don't necessarily trust Levi on technicalities.

He's fantastic for philosophy and right-seing, but sometimes a bit whacked on technique.

the atlas itch

Ok, thanks for confirmation.

I’m currently transforming my entire library into pdf form – its incredibly efficient for research. If you could recommend any good titles for the evocation of elementals that would be appreciated (I already have *776 ½, *Paracelsus’ treatise on Elementals and Bardon’s Practical Magical Evocation).

Jim Eshelman

For historic research and context, add The Greater Key of Solomon and The Magus.

the atlas itch

If the Elemental Sovereigns (Paralda, Niksa, Djinn and Ghob) are forces of Nature, is there a deity that corresponds to the concept of “Nature” and where would it be listed in 776 1/2? I am trying to find out who these Elemental Sovereigns answer to.

Elementals are said to exist inside their elemental world, but can they perceive outside of their respective world into the worlds of other elementals or our world?

Are the elementals similar to voudon loas?

Thanks for feedback.

Jim Eshelman

@he atlas itch said

"If the Elemental Sovereigns (Paralda, Niksa, Djinn and Ghob) are forces of Nature, is there a deity that corresponds to the concept of “Nature” and where would it be listed in 776 1/2? I am trying to find out who these Elemental Sovereigns answer to."

Qabalisically, they each answer to the Divine Name of their element.

In another sense, though, all distinctly elemental powers are forces of Malkuth, so they are manageable under its hierarchy as the field of the elements.

"Are the elementals similar to voudon loas?"

No, I think the level is all wrong (though the behavior is right!). The loas (like the Orishi) are much higher-rank entities than mere elementals. For example, they have distinctive character and characteristics. They serve much of the function of gods in other panetheons, but I've never had the feeling they are even Briatic. (However, they might well be Briatic - archangelic - beings in cheap clothing.) - Their primacy in those religions is too high to be merely elementals, but they could well be the very top of the elemental hierarchies, like the highest ranking (non-arch) angels, similar to the planetary angels; or, among the elemental hierarchies, the kerubim.

the atlas itch

Thanks for clarification on the loas. One of the interesting lines of thinking that has opened up with this earth working is the question of what makes us human.

Jim Eshelman

@he atlas itch said

"Thanks for clarification on the loas. One of the interesting lines of thinking that has opened up with this earth working is the question of what makes us human."

The traditional answer is that we are Microcosms. That is, we have all elements (all categories of experience) inherently within us.

Now, philosophically we can recognize the chauvinism in this; but, philosophically, we can also recognize that all this can mean in practice is that we have within us all those categories of experience that are inherently present in humans And we call these the five elements (or 4 elements + Spirit or Quintessence which is their integration).

This, I am sure, is the best meaning of the statement in Genesis that Elohim (who is the original Pentagrammaton of Qabalah) made humanity in Her image: We are made, inwardly and outwardly, in the image of the pentagram.

the atlas itch

Given Paracelsus' claim that elementals are attracted to humans because we have souls and all the warnings against forming pacts with them, where does the concept of soul fit into this?

Jim Eshelman

@he atlas itch said

"Given Paracelsus' claim that elementals are attracted to humans because we have souls and all the warnings against forming pacts with them, where does the concept of soul fit into this?"

That (in this context) means the top point of the pentagram, Spirit or Quintessence - specifically seen (depending on the author or context) either as a synthesis that comes from having all the component elements within us OR a point of contact with God.

Elementals have just one point of the pentagram (each) to their nature. Humans have five.