Psychic Self Defence
-
Drawing pentagrams on a door is, in itself, insufficient. However, that doesn't mean it's not a valid technique. Fortune's book was a standard for over half a century, and still has much to teach.
The book I recommended simply goes much further.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Drawing pentagrams on a door is, in itself, insufficient. However, that doesn't mean it's not a valid technique. Fortune's book was a standard for over half a century, and still has much to teach.
The book I recommended simply goes much further."
Would the book you recommend explain how to render pentagrams a sufficient method of protection?
-
@Freya said
"Thank you very much Jim. For some reason many people think that Dion Fortune is the only authority on the subject. Whilst I think that her book is very informative, it is my opinion that it lacks more practical tecniques of psychic self defence (i.e. I already knew how to bless water and salt).
In her book she describes pentagrams as an effective symbol to ward off evil. if I am not mistaken Abramelin says that unless the person drawing pentagrams is very skilled, the symbol is quite worthless (I may remember incorrectly). If this is true drawing pentagrams on the door to protect the house gives only a false sense of protection. What is your opinion on the subject?"
I've personally never heard of this, unless what is meant is that they have a complete ignorance of what that symbol means. Some, of course view the pentagram as a symbol of Satan, which if used as a pertection with this idea in mind, may weaken it. However, if you know enough about the true symbolism behind it, it is effective - and I'm betting that the symbol itself holds power when used regardless. Do you already know about the LBRP? If you read Dion Fortune, then I'm guessing you do. If not, then that is a great way to begin. There is a lot of information available on this nice banishing ritual.
-
@Freya said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Drawing pentagrams on a door is, in itself, insufficient. However, that doesn't mean it's not a valid technique. Fortune's book was a standard for over half a century, and still has much to teach.The book I recommended simply goes much further."
Would the book you recommend explain how to render pentagrams a sufficient method of protection?"
No pentagram will be enough if you keep your aura receptive to the invader. It is like building a huge wall around your house and leaving the door unlocked.
Psychological hygiene is a very important part. -
Yes, I know about the ritual you mention but I was told that it has the propensity to "light up" your presentce in the astral. I was told is good when performing other rituals afterwards, but not as a protection ritual on its own. I was told that the Rose cross ritual is the one to use......is this view correct?
-
@Freya said
"Yes, I know about the ritual you mention but I was told that it has the propensity to "light up" your presentce in the astral. I was told is good when performing other rituals afterwards, but not as a protection ritual on its own. I was told that the Rose cross ritual is the one to use......is this view correct?"
Yes it does. Exactly right. It takes you out of hiding. And you need to live your life visible, lit up, vibrant, etc.
If you only perform it occasionally, you only light yourself up but don't have the strength and habituated patterns that make it powerful. This is why the advice is to perform it daily, as a way of life.
-
-
It ALWAYS attracts attention - over the year's, you mature into a blazing Sun illuminating the in er worlds. But you also become a tough mother-fucker, on course and doing your Will, so that doesn't matter.
-
@Freya said
"Both rituals, the lesser banishing ritual first and then the rose cross."
I wouldn't mix them unless there were an extraordinary reason.
The RC ritual is useful for situations where U want to hide in some sense, or have a withdrawn and undisturbed space as for very still meditation. This is useful sometimes, but no way to live one's life.
-
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"It ALWAYS attracts attention - over the year's, you mature into a blazing Sun illuminating the in er worlds."And on what grounds do you make this claim? Or, in fact, any of the claims you've made on this thread?"
- Experience
- Observation
- Confirming feedback from others
It's basically the core method of A.'.A.'.:
- Due something
- Observe & record
- Assess & draw conclusions based primarily on personal experiencs
Etc.
-
I just found this while doing a research. Magnificent expert opinion on the subject of “not believing at empirical evidence”.
"Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"It ALWAYS attracts attention - over the year's, you mature into a blazing Sun illuminating the in er worlds."And on what grounds do you make this claim? Or, in fact, any of the claims you've made on this thread?"
- Experience
- Observation"
No amount of pretending that you're a "blazing Sun illuminating the inner worlds" demonstrates that there are inner worlds on which anything like this is happening. Unless by "inner worlds," you simply mean "make believe," which I suspect you do not.
"3. Confirming feedback from others"
And no matter how many other people also pretend that they're a "blazing Sun illuminating the inner worlds," this still doesn't demosntrate that there are inner worlds or anything remotely like this.
It's the same with all the rest of these claims. There's no such thing as "psychic attack," so the OP can go ahead and draw any symbols you want over anything you want. The result will be the same.
-
And that's not what I said. You're characterizing it as something different than I said or meant.
We teach magick. That's basic to what we do, and basic to what this forum is about. I was speaking on the topic of magick to those involved in its practice, most likely in language useful to them in that practice.
Please don't start derailing every conversation on the forum. We don't exist only to give you a platform for your antimetaphysical views. We have our on-going, day-to-day work to handle around here as well.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"We teach magick."
Of course. But I think hardly anyone would consider it "derailing" a conversation on a given subject to discuss how a person would know that claims being made about that topic are correct. That's sort of the entire purpose of having a subject that people study and learn.
What you've said is that you experience X, observe X, and have others confirm X (presumably after they too have experienced X), and that's how you know that X is true. Well, that's a woefully insufficient answer. The same can be said about Christians who experience Jesus Christ, observe their interactions with him, and have others -- millions and millions of other Christians -- confirm very similar experiences. Does that demonstrate that Christ is real, then? The same can be said of Hindus "experiencing" Shiva, or zillions of other false claims.
In other words, you're teaching a subject, and when someone asks you a pretty basic question about the subject -- like how you know the stuff you're saying about it is true -- you give a woefully insufficient answer. Isn't that something worth talking about?
"I was speaking on the topic of magick to those involved in its practice, most likely in language useful to them in that practice."
I've performed the LBRP daily for years and years, and I fail to see how it's "helpful" to describe it as "lighting up" "inner worlds," "attracting attention" (presumably from make believe creatures like spirits) or telling yourself a story about how you're becoming a "tough motherflucker."
Maybe you can elucidate the helpfulness of that terminology, because it sounds to me suspiciously like the sort of terminology that encourages people to think they have spooky powers when they are in fact just spinning in circles in their bedroom and intoning a bunch of funny-sounding words.
"We don't exist only to give you a platform for your antimetaphysical views."
Well, my "antimetaphysical views" have a sound basis in the lack of any evidence for metaphysical claims. If people aren't welcome to discuss the evidence for magick on a forum called "Magick," I'd suggest that the forum is improperly named.
