Evocation: Like condensed steam or in a person?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@axismundi said
"I would be interested to hear the views of both those that have done this and the ideas of those that have not."About what, exactly?"
Whether or not personal autonomy is effected if a medium is 'used'.
Do people find physical manifestation takes more effort like I do
What type of evocation is most suitable to which approach e.g. is it ethical to have a lemegeton spirit in a person or not.
What other approaches are preferred for example a shewstone or magic mirror but does this provide an analogous condition to physical evocation
If a physical result or outcome is sought which do people find most useful. For example with physical evocation I can usually rely on a result within two weeks, at worst a lunar month.
I appreciate that my starting post was a little broad.
-
@axismundi said
"Whether or not personal autonomy is effected if a medium is 'used'."
Whose?
"Do people find physical manifestation takes more effort like I do"
Yes, its a tough, dense operation compared to others.
"What type of evocation is most suitable to which approach e.g. is it ethical to have a lemegeton spirit in a person or not."
Big topic worthy of book or at least essay level, not a short post. "Ethical" is complicated here, although I think at least the main points are that the person has to be sufficiently and effectively informed about all aspects of the matter, and it should be someone of excellent psychological health and reasonably good physical health.
"What other approaches are preferred for example a shewstone or magic mirror but does this provide an analogous condition to physical evocation"
I've written various articles on this in Black Pearl, In the Continuum, and some of my books, especially 776 1/2.
"If a physical result or outcome is sought which do people find most useful. For example with physical evocation I can usually rely on a result within two weeks, at worst a lunar month."
Rarely to I have to go to that extreme - the usual creative visualization formulae normally work perfectly well, and are the basis of most other effective phenomenological work. But if going the High Magick route, I would usually conceive of the result in a way that makes me the agent of its accomplishment, invoke the hierarchy down to the Assiah level, embody it in a eucharist, and consume the eucharist.
-
@axismundi said
"I get the feeling that there are a few people here who have proficiency and could perhaps be termed adepts."
You don't have to be an Adept to perform an evocation. Unless you mean adept at performing evocations.
I think one can be fairly good at the Neophyte level, without commenting about any particular tests that may be appropriate when passing a particular Grade...
@axismundi said
"Personally I prefer not to have a human medium however evocation to visible appearance does require some effort I find."
Well, it depends what you mean by visible appearance, which I think is tricky territory that can be misconstrued in writings...
@axismundi said
"I would be interested to hear the views of both those that have done this and the ideas of those that have not."
In my personal experience, I usually perform the "evocation" astrally. As far as blasting a room with a crap load of incense and using what I call "hybrid sight," it is a lot of work for something that can be acheived very successfully through what Jim calls 'the usual creative visualization formulae...'
Also, evocation and invocation are very similar in so many ways. When performing an operation astrally, I use both terms almost interchangably, although they tend to* appear *as different perspectives. It really all depends what we consider "inside" and "outside"...
-
Yes. Here's are a few lines from Pearls of Wisdom on that point:
**Invocation and evocation are both techniques for attuning a magician’s self-consciousness to a particular PRINCIPLE, operating on a particular PLANE. **
Whether invoking Elohiym Gibbor, or evoking Bartzabel, the magician attunes his or her self-conscious awareness to the principle we call Mars. In the former case, we raise our awareness to the higher vibrations of Atziluth (or as close thereto as we can). In the latter case, we isolate and externalize an aspect of Yetziratic consciousness somewhat lower than our own chronic level of Yetziratic consciousness.
Therefore, only minor differences exist between invocation and evocation. This is amazing, since classical evocation methods instruct the magician to talk to a spirit in a way that few would ever suggest you talk to a god! Yet the spirit is a specialized, and very powerful, implementer of the nature and will of that god.
-
It is true Frater 639 that you do not have to be an Adept to perform evocation successfully, I think a fair few of the grimiore purists do not consider the HGA thing important. However I suspect that evocation is something that Adepts tend to do somewhat more.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yes. Here's are a few lines from Pearls of Wisdom on that point:
**Invocation and evocation are both techniques for attuning a magician’s self-consciousness to a particular PRINCIPLE, operating on a particular PLANE.......... **"
Perhaps here it is a difference between Theurgy and Thaumaturgy.
There have been situations, rather recently when a rather time sensitive problem has arisen. I have to say that in such circumstances evoking a goetic spirit to go do X to person and situation Y within a fortnight and knowing that will happen has been most useful. There are obvious ethical issues here so to sidestep (preferably) I add that in this example, influence rather then any harm was required.
I agree that there are a lot of ways to influence and just let things 'flow down' which have a more Divine Theurgic feel. But I have to say in terms of thaumaturgy, for me the physical evocation thing just gets it done. My view is that if you evoke to physical the 'in the world' effect gets done real quick. This is an opinion that has caused somewhat rancorous debate in the past but I hope will meet a different mode of criticism here.
-
I wonder how you are defining thaumaturgy - how you would say this differently if you didn't have that word.
In principle, I don't see any significant difference between "God-working" and "miracle-working," so I thought I'd ask what you mean by this.
-
@axismundi said
"However I suspect that evocation is something that Adepts tend to do somewhat more."
Again, I think, if a person truly be an Adept, classical evocation is hardly necessary IMHO. However, not to say it couldn't be a preferred method by anyone -- it depends on that person's unique technique.
@axismundi said
"There are obvious ethical issues here so to sidestep (preferably) I add that in this example, influence rather then any harm was required."
Any ethical issue that may arise will be in accordance with the operator's perspective, whether they are conscious of it or not.
@axismundi said
"This is an opinion that has caused somewhat rancorous debate in the past but I hope will meet a different mode of criticism here."
I think the "effectiveness" variable lies in the operator, not *a priori *in the technique or plane affected.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I wonder how you are defining thaumaturgy - how you would say this differently if you didn't have that word.
In principle, I don't see any significant difference between "God-working" and "miracle-working," so I thought I'd ask what you mean by this."
I took a quick look at the Wikipedia description of thaumaturgy and I can see why you are interested in definitions, especially because of the idea of miracle working. It seems to me that the definition of thaumaturgy as commonly accepted is incorrect or as you surmise my usage of it may be possibly incorrect.
So firstly I do not see thaumaturgy as miracle working in the Xtian sense. Being a conduit for God and effecting a change or miracle through humble prayer for example is more towards the theurgy end of the spectrum personally I would say.
To emphasise the material world; what I am trying to get across is that thaumaturgy is centred I feel more on the material whereas theurgy brings the Divine through which may then effect the material. So it could be said that thaumaturgy is the material realisation of theurgy but I feel this is too limited a description of thaumaturgy.
To define thaumaturgy I shall resort to some important stuff I first encountered at early school: set theory and venn diagrams.
So 'T' is theurgy and 'Th' is thaumaturgy. If you draw two circles that overlap one called 'T' and one called 'Th' then with respect to the material world:
A material effect like one of Franz Bardons magic gestures that are loaded over time is pure Thaumaturgy ('Th'). The purpose and required effect are loaded into the hand sign through repeated Magical effort. Then without any Magical effort at all the gesture is secretly done in your jacket pocket and the loaded effect is realised.
So on the venn diagram this is 'Th'
Material effects that use both theurgy and thaumaturgy are 'T' intersect 'Th'. 'T' ( 'Th'.
For example Deity assumption and by the Divine authority physically evoke a spirit to obey for a particular physical outcome.Stuff where you invoke or pray to Deity and something just happens in the world are definitely Theurgy. 'T' only on the venn diagram.
So to try another way to describe: it could be at the material level considered a polarity. Pure thaumaturgy is material effects via occult practices. Theurgy is the Divine brought to the material which may produce physical effects by 'miracles'.
So I feel we have a spectrum with a sliding scale from theurgy to theurgy/thaumaturgy to thaumaturgy.
This is what I meant in my previous post but in terms of strict definitions was I correct?
-
@Frater 639 said
".....
I think the "effectiveness" variable lies in the operator, not *a priori *in the technique or plane affected."I am just focussing on this bit here.
Yes the operator must be proficient. However thaumaturgy allows something to be built up and released like Franz Bardon's magic gesture and at the moment of release no theurgy at all is required. This is why in this example Bardon warns that an untrained person knowing the secret Magic gesture could use its power by just imitating the gesture. So if this were to occur no theurgy at all would be happening and the operator could have absolutely no proficiency (except in making the hand gesture).
So yes in certain circumstances it is purely the technique or plane effected I would say.
-
@axismundi said
"To emphasise the material world; what I am trying to get across is that thaumaturgy is centred I feel more on the material whereas theurgy brings the Divine through which may then effect the material."
That would be a highly personalized definition of the word
It does help me understand what you were saying.Personally, I think the words you were seeking are "parlor tricks." I dispute that there is any form of magick (any thing for which "magick" is the correct word) that has its roots anywhere except in the Divine.
"So to try another way to describe: it could be at the material level considered a polarity. Pure thaumaturgy is material effects via occult practices."
All effective occult practices rely on the "one and only energy" that originates in the Divine.
"Theurgy is the Divine brought to the material which may produce physical effects by 'miracles'.
So I feel we have a spectrum with a sliding scale from theurgy to theurgy/thaumaturgy to thaumaturgy."
I think there must be another word that would express your idea better. Actually, I think it's a false dichotomy and you're mistaken on the real source of power behind what you are calling thaumaturgy.
-
I shall press on, I think thaumaturgy is more towards what I am describing. Sorcery which is moving existing energy around rather then bring stuff in from the Divine is a form of thaumaturgy I feel. However I accept I am handicapped here by the Wikipedia definition of thaumaturgy and miracles.
-
If you don't mind, I think the distinction is a matter of worldview.
There simply are those who choose to understand (and speak of) what they are doing as having no relationship to any sort of divinity or Divine reality at all. There are also those who refuse to allow themselves to do anything that they see as conflicting with their primary understanding of divinity. And there are some who see no difference because they see it all as Divine.
-
@axismundi said
"
@Frater 639 said
".....
I think the "effectiveness" variable lies in the operator, not *a priori *in the technique or plane affected."I am just focussing on this bit here.
Yes the operator must be proficient. However thaumaturgy allows something to be built up and released like Franz Bardon's magic gesture and at the moment of release no theurgy at all is required. This is why in this example Bardon warns that an untrained person knowing the secret Magic gesture could use its power by just imitating the gesture. So if this were to occur no theurgy at all would be happening and the operator could have absolutely no proficiency (except in making the hand gesture).
So yes in certain circumstances it is purely the technique or plane effected I would say."
I think his idea has much more to do with the *operator's belief *that using the hands will release "something." Bardon constantly pushed concentration above all - and in the later stages of his book, a magician was supposedly capable of all "energy" work through mostly imagination. Was the attributions he gave to certain hand gestures related to the elemental attitudes? I didn't think that he was relating them to specific spirits or evocation - I have to confess, I haven't read him for awhile...
How do you feel this example fits in with evocation? I would consider the building up of energy in "magical gestures" to be more energy model based and evocation to be more spirit model based...is that perhaps the dichotomy that we're looking at?
-
Yes, I dispute that copying the gesture would work. One has to build it up for oneself.
The gestures are essentially keyboard macros.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yes, I dispute that copying the gesture would work. One has to build it up for oneself.
The gestures are essentially keyboard macros."
I have to admit I do not have a currently loaded gesture because I tend to do volting these days. It would be interesting to test this, load a gesture get someone to use it when you do not know it is being utilised, see if any effect.
Frater 639
To refresh your memory in Initiation into hermetics, Bardon identifies that a loaded gesture can be used by anyone if they learn it even though the operator goes to the effort of loading it.I will get back to this after some sleep
Thanks both for your thoughts
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@axismundi said
"
@Frater 639 said
".....
I think the "effectiveness" variable lies in the operator, not *a priori *in the technique or plane affected."I am just focussing on this bit here.
Yes the operator must be proficient. However thaumaturgy allows something to be built up and released like Franz Bardon's magic gesture and at the moment of release no theurgy at all is required. This is why in this example Bardon warns that an untrained person knowing the secret Magic gesture could use its power by just imitating the gesture. So if this were to occur no theurgy at all would be happening and the operator could have absolutely no proficiency (except in making the hand gesture).
So yes in certain circumstances it is purely the technique or plane effected I would say."
I think his idea has much more to do with the *operator's belief *that using the hands will release "something." Bardon constantly pushed concentration above all - and in the later stages of his book, a magician was supposedly capable of all "energy" work through mostly imagination. Was the attributions he gave to certain hand gestures related to the elemental attitudes? I didn't think that he was relating them to specific spirits or evocation - I have to confess, I haven't read him for awhile...
How do you feel this example fits in with evocation? I would consider the building up of energy in "magical gestures" to be more energy model based and evocation to be more spirit model based...is that perhaps the dichotomy that we're looking at?"
I would say that the hand gesture if it produces a physical effect is evocation and the spirit if it appears physically is evocation also. This brings me back to the Theurgy vs Thaumaturgy where I think that the popular definition of thaumaturgy is wrong. The Wikipedia definition of thaumaturgy us inherently Xtian I feel because it uses the word miracle. Miracles are things that occur through Divine intercession which I think is a more Theurgy thing.
Evocation in as far as it is a physical thing can be occur via Theurgy or Thaumaturgy.
For theurgy the evoked effect could be for example: Water is turned to wine because the 'son of God' did it.
For thaumaturgy the evoked effect is a car mechanic learns a hand gesture from a magician and when it is employed by them in the street, the nearest person from the mechanic starts hopping on 1 leg for a short time instead of just walking along.Both are evoked effects. The thaumaturgy comment I made originally here was a perhaps misguided attempt to emphasise results over spiritual attitude, I am personally finding this all very useful.
-
@axismundi said
"This brings me back to the Theurgy vs Thaumaturgy where I think that the popular definition of thaumaturgy is wrong. The Wikipedia definition of thaumaturgy us inherently Xtian I feel because it uses the word miracle. Miracles are things that occur through Divine intercession which I think is a more Theurgy thing."
The word "miracle" is not inherently Christian - far from it! It simply means a wonder - something wondrous to behold. And don't blame Wikipedia for this one, it's the literal meaning of the word: The Greek thauma means "miracle, wonder, marvel," etc.
It's not just a "popular definition." It is as inherent in the word as "wonder" is in "wonderful."
I hear that you're wanting to make a distinction, and to have a word that means something like "magick that is not dependent on Atziluth."
"For theurgy the evoked effect could be for example: Water is turned to wine because the 'son of God' did it."
<sigh> That's awfully narrow. You're stuck in the idea of theurgy being a prayer, etc. That's very narrow, and excludes 99% of what is rightly counts as theurgy. If the definition were indeed that narrow, then I'd see why you wanted a term for everything else.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
".....
The word "miracle" is not inherently Christian - far from it! It simply means a wonder - something wondrous to behold. And don't blame Wikipedia for this one, it's the literal meaning of the word: The Greek thauma means "miracle, wonder, marvel," etc.It's not just a "popular definition." It is as inherent in the word as "wonder" is in "wonderful."
I hear that you're wanting to make a distinction, and to have a word that means something like "magick that is not dependent on Atziluth."
"For theurgy the evoked effect could be for example: Water is turned to wine because the 'son of God' did it."
<sigh> That's awfully narrow. You're stuck in the idea of theurgy being a prayer, etc. That's very narrow, and excludes 99% of what is rightly counts as theurgy. If the definition were indeed that narrow, then I'd see why you wanted a term for everything else."
A 'wonder' does not have to draw its source immediately from the Divine. There are many natural things which are wonderful but not directly there right now because of recent Divine activity although all things stem from atziluth originally.
Did Jesus turn water into wine via theurgy or thaumaturgy do you think?
-
@axismundi said
"A 'wonder' does not have to draw its source immediately from the Divine."
I didn't say it does. I did say that "wonder" is literally what we mean by "miracle" (and I did say that I don't think there's magick separate from the divine - though that's admittedly a matter of definition).
"Did Jesus turn water into wine via theurgy or thaumaturgy do you think?"
Side-stepping the question of whether he existed... I think he did it via oenology.
And what I've otherwise been trying to say is that there is no difference between theurgy and thaumaturgy. The words of different roots but, in practice, mean exactly the same thing.
