First impression of the book, and a question

oldtaboo

First, let me say I really like the book. It looks great, very professional.
Second, I was very happy to get it so fast. Perhaps due to the fact I live in southern california... but i had this the next day after it was shipped.
Third, the sample rituals are great... but more so the advice given. One principal that's raised in the book, is to consider what gain you get from failing... totally true. a lot of times a "sickness" is useful to achieve something. or "failing" an interview - to garner something. I really like that you raised that in the book. What really challenged me was your comment that we always have a reason to fail and we should confront that. Makes sense.

Anyway... in regards to the ritual on "The Art of Evocation," I had a question. This concept of Invocation vs. evocation is always something I struggled with understanding. I always thought of it as, in invocation we're brining the Divine within and in evocation we're taking something darker and bringout it outside of us. You say somethign similar ... you bring up an interesting aspect of the invocation and evocation reaching the same energy on a different level (if I understood you right.) Example on pg. 149 you said, "In brief, invocation and evocation are both techniques for attuning self-consciousness to a particular PRINCIPLE, acting on a particular PLANE. Whether Elohim Gibor is invoked or Bartzabal is evoked, the magician is attuning her self-conscious awareness to that common principle we call Mars; but in the former case, she is also raising her awareness to the higher vibrations of Atziluth (or as close therto as she is capable), whereas in the latter, she is actually isolating an aspect of the Yetziratic consciousness which is somewhat lower than that which is then typical of her own level of consciousness."

I'm curious where you'd place the Enochian aspect of Magick. Would you (or the currents of the GD or Thelema) ascribe it to evocation or invocation? Some GD authors such as Pat Zalewiski ascribe Enochian Entities to realms below Briah. Others like G. James place Evocation in the title of their work "The Enochian Evocation of Dr. John Dee." Yet they don't seem to make the clear distinction often seen in evocation - i.e. no drawn physical circle, no triangle of art to bind the entity with... So it seems like a grey area... an evocation without the clear distinctions of evocation. It almost seems like an invocation of the ritual (like opening by watchtower... or in Dee's day, inflaming oneself in prayer, ... or by some modernists, reading key's 1 and 2, then calling the hierarchy to an Enochian 'angel' such as CZONS.)

So I guess I'm asking - how do you see Enochian magick... as an invocation or evocation... and if the later, do you utilize a physical circle, triangle, etc? If not, why?

Thanks.

Jim Eshelman

First, thanks for the compliments! Glad you liked the book so much.

@ldtab said

"I always thought of it as, in invocation we're brining the Divine within and in evocation we're taking something darker and bringout it outside of us."

Not necessarily dark, though. There are bright spirits that can be evoked as well.

"I'm curious where you'd place the Enochian aspect of Magick."

Enochian is based on hierarchies of names, just like the Hebrew system. Some of the names are Atziluthic, some (e.g., the Seniors) are Briatic, and many are Yetziratic.

"Would you (or the currents of the GD or Thelema) ascribe it to evocation or invocation?"

It depends on what you are contacting. You invoke what is at a higher vibration plane than you are, which usually means Atziluthic and Briatic forces. You evoke what is at a lower vibration plane than you are, which is most of Yetzirah.

"It almost seems like an invocation of the ritual (like opening by watchtower... or in Dee's day, inflaming oneself in prayer, ... or by some modernists, reading key's 1 and 2, then calling the hierarchy to an Enochian 'angel' such as CZONS.)"

The 1st and 2nd Calls are specifically ascribed to Spirit.

oldtaboo

@Jim Eshelman said

"First, thanks for the compliments! Glad you liked the book so much.