/omg/ - Occultism & Magick General

Where can i read the Tuatha de danann?

>>16927897
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Cover the common schools s of the occult, including Christian and Jewish etc..

>>16927897
The OP couldn't be more shit. Let me try instead.

>Bardon
Absolute shit; the practices are okay, the theory is abysmal.

>Ordo Templi Orientis and A∴A∴
>OTO:
Francis King, Peter Koenig, Liber Aleph.

>A.'.A.'.:
Holy Books of Thelema, and literally everything else (including all the other branches of the Tree).

>Golden Dawn:
Complete Golden Dawn by Regardie.

>Qabalah
Sepher Yetzirah by Aryeh Kaplan.

Agreed on Carroll and RAW.

I would switch "Other books for theory" with "basic reading". Also throw in Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes, and all the other Big Heads there.

>>16928258
To be fair I haven't seen anyone actually expound on Orthodox Christian mysticism. I would be very interested in seeing something like that.

>>16928528
People used to love bradon around here, happened?

>>16928579
There's always, I think, been vocal, loud detractors in these threads.

>>16928579
They never did. Are you new?

>>16928581
And the Bardonites only came around... a year ago? Something like that.

>>16928606
I've been coming here on and off for years, and I've only noticed hate to wards bradon in the past few months

My expertise is Alchemy, Christian Mysticism, Natural Philosophy, Neo-Platonism, and Hermeticism.

For the next hour or so, feel free to ask me any questions or pick my brain. If you ask me a general question, I probably have a baseline understanding, and know how it refers to my field of research, so I will also try and answer those as well. .

>>16927897
I'd like to also suggest Oven-Ready Chaos by Phil Hine (aka Condensed Chaos) as entry-level reading for Chaos Magic.

Hine's not as information dense as Carroll. Which could be a pro or a con depending on your aims and personal preference/learning style. Also, it's super accessible and easy to read, making it a great entry point, especially for those who are new to the occult as a whole and want to start with Chaos.

>>16928678
Can you give a basic description on the things you listed?
I'm interested in the occult I'm general and have no idea what specific field I want to go into, or start with?

>>16928793
Starting is the hard part. A good foundation of classic Philosophy, with the aim of using it to interpret whatever catches your interest is a safe place.

It is a lot of work, it is designed to keep out people who want it for the wrong reasons, or come along with the wrong attitude. It isn't going to make you rich, and it isn't going to move you closer to thinking something which might push the boundaries of what has already been said for a few years. At the very least, and that is if you are naturally apt for it, which most aren't.

>>16929158
How does synthesizing hermeticism with the ideas of other philosophers help you understand it better? Most esoteric philosophies are supposed to be learned through gnosis anyways, so trying to understand one entirely in terms of concepts one can get simply from sitting down and reading a book would seem to be missing the point.

Teach me something interesting /x/

File: vesalius1.jpg (97KB, 360x601px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 360x601px

all i ever wanted to was raise the dead...

>>16929494
This place couldn't raise a gnat's erection.

>>16929494
is that to much to ask?

Journey to Ixtland by Carlos Castaneda pretty much outlines most of the concepts you need to conceive to literally transcend time and space.

Chaos Magick is also an excellent place to start.

I would check out books like Liber Null and Psychonaut and also Liber Kaos by Pete Carroll, and even a Grant Morrison book such as Pop Magic!

I'll just be hangin out watchin this thread

How do I get into magic if I'm scared of magic (but not scared enough to not be interested in it and read books about it?)

>>16928579
Bardon has always had his detractors on this board. A few years back they were far less kind about it though. If you remember any of the statements about fat Frabato those were about Bardon.

>>16929578

meditate and listen
stop choosing reality and understand that your words and actions can be answers for yourself and others

understand that you are a living vessel of prophecy

and understand that you are a living vessel of magic. and that magic is perfect coincidence.

miracles are performed through synchronicity with the eternal web

Castaneda's books actually do an excellent job of describing this stuff. And they're usually just stories that can be interesting as well.

Another word of advice, don't get too caught up in LHP vs. RHP. Just do you. Circle jerking around one specific path is a waste

>>16929622
Will I be able to discover cool things if I look into this. I enjoy finding cool things.

>>16929638
definitely. if you're looking to find work to help others see, you will find that. If you're looking to levitate once (and feel as if you're controlling the experience) then you will do that.

Believe it, when you want something enough, you will find it. Just don't worry about the "means". All you need to know is that the universe exists, and so do you.

Simple question, why hermetics?
What will a deep knowledge of hermetics give me?

I've never gotten a clear, concise answer to that from anyone claiming to have knowledge in the subject.
I am interested in it, and I recently picked up a copy of Introduction into hermetics as adviced, but I'd like a general tl;dr in the effects of hermetics.

>>16929641
No, I don't want to do any of that. I just wanna come across cool shit.

If I read this or that book, will I find cool shit. Can you suggest cool shit to read, and tell me something interesting while you're at it.

>>16929657
you wouldn't want the ability to fly or heal cancer miraculously if the power was there, waiting for you to discover, and the only thing you had to do was intend such a thing?

I find that hard to believe.

anyways once you discover the magical rabbit hole you'll always be experiencing magical things. so I guess the choice is yours. Pretend this stuff isn't happening as humanity evolves to experience it constantly, or just accept it and do things with meaning for once in your life and discover what kind of power you truly have.

>>16929690
No, I believe hole heartily in the deep "magics" of this world.

The universe is a big fucking place, and everything is fucking weird. I do believe in all this non-sense, just don't really wanna partake in it. Kinda just wanna sit on the side lines and watch it happen, interesting stuff.

So, as I said. I wanna come across cool shit, such as cool shit to read, or tell me something interesting while you're at it.

Thanks

>>16929726
Carlos Castaneda's "The Fire From Within" is pretty good.

I like Castaneda's books all around.

>>16929736
Anything else?

>>16929263
> learned through gnosis
You're right, simply reading a book isn't enough, but if you have lived something, the text becomes clear. You can live something internally, by imaginatively thinking it through with empathy.

>>16929494
Do you know what you're asking? This is a complicated subject. Depending on the sense of dead, plenty could show you.

Shit I didn't see this thread when I created this : >>16930567

Can anyone help me out?

File: WITNESS ME.jpg (172KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1920x1080px

>>16927897
How do sigils work? How would a beginner go about learning how to do sigil work?

What is the point of embracing the occult?

Any details on what magic you do and or why?

Everyone always shrouds in mystery, it would be nice for a direct hit haha

>>16931181
Read.

>>16929578
Read/listen to paranormal/magical fiction books.

>>16928213
Hi Aedhan.

>suggesting books thread

Get /lit/

>>16931361
>Harvest their orgonite
But orgonite is artificial. You lost me. I reckon this is a made up thing.

>>16931361
>can't even get the trip right
Please.

>>16931376
Xir's deluded.

>>16930469
please direct me to any form of necromancy

>>16931181
The cheap and easy answer would be self programming. Pick any of the books on chaos magic that have been suggested in this thread for more there. Though something by Austin Osman Spare would be more fun to read on the topic.
>>16931196
Rare and spiritual experiences. Bit of self improvement thrown in.
>Any details on what magic you do and or why?
An eclectic mix of ritual work borrowed from the HoGD, Rosicrucian, Gnostic, and kabbalah tradations

>Everyone always shrouds in mystery, it would be nice for a direct hit haha
That's inherent to the practice. It's something you can't know until you've tried it. The experience is so far removed from the everyday that it can't be explained simply.

>>16929578
Download the audio lectures by stephan hoeller. They are easily accessible, though they are about the history of magic, not how to do magic. He's Gnostic so they carry that bias, but he's dabbled with everything from wicca to ancient Egyptian ritual and is very knowledgeable.

>>16931507
Necromancy is trying to tell the future by throwing bones or reading the entrails of dead animals. You want medium work, which sadly I can't help with.

>>16931510
What exactly rosicrucian, kaballah, and gnostic "magic" is there? What god or God assists you?

File: 1439330120089.jpg (99KB, 497x652px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 497x652px

>>16927897
You guys realize magickckck isn't real... right?

>>16931525
Even though i have my argument against magic, it is definately real

It isnt even in just "spell casting" it is in advertising, food, also in pharmaceuticals, electronics. Seems ridiculous but when you study occultism you can see it everywhere and expose it

>>16931517
Trying to work with the complete "god" would be rather a clusterfuck and a waste of time. When working those pantheons I'll work with the powers(spirits/angels/what have you) of the sephirot depending on the ritual in meditation in question. Gnostism doesn't have a set magical system associated with it, the gnostic mystics I've met and chat with tend to borrow heavily from hermetic traditions when they work, but I do find the gnostic view of the unfolded universe to be helpful in my meditations.

>>16931513
its what? no no no. maybe for some people but really just nooooo. its talking to the dead. its funeral prayers. occasionally its exploitation of the dead for different purposes if someone is going that route with it.
Casting bones and Augury are actually two different forms of Divination and neither is actually necromancy.

>>16931545
So I can work with the one God with or without magic? I like Hermetics and stuff too

What are reasons you would cast spells?

>>16931546
The mancy suffix denotes divination. Necro-mancy is trying to tell the future through death. Talking to the dead and the rest of that is medium work, not necromancy.

>>16931551
This.

Also let's try to define magic!

>>16931549
>>16931549
The hermetic view is that the one god is all. Everything, in the universe, including you, is part of God. The various spirits and gods you work with are all part of god as well.
From the Corpus Hermeticum

>Tat: Is God in matter then, father?

>Hermes: Why, what is matter apart from God, my son, that you should assign a place to it? What else but an inert mass do you suppose matter would be, if it were not worked upon? And if it is worked upon, who is it that works upon it? I have told you that forces at work are parts of God; who is it then that puts life into all living creatures? Who is it that give immortal beings their immortality? Who is it that works change in things subject to change? And whether you speak of matter, or body, or substance, know that these also are manifestation of God's working; for it is God that by his working makes matter material, and bodies corporeal, and substance substantial. God is the All; and there is nothing that is not included in the All. Hence there is neither magnitude nor place nor quality nor shape nor time beside God; for God is all, and the All permeates all things, and has to do with all things. This God, my son, I bid you worship and adore. And there is but one way to worship God; it is to be devoid of evil.

Not matter what you work with, you're working with god.

hey. I have an interesting to me thing to dicuss.

The traditional approach to the goetia, as it is written in the goetia itself, is to use the power of YHWH and his minions to usurp the Demons and usr them as slaves in all practicality. I always find that really difficult to understand. Why would we use YHWH to enslave the, if they hate YHWH enough that theyd do much more and much more eficiently if simply asked and offered some offering? Why not work with them as 'friends' or atleast from amore friendly approach? generally if you enslave someone you anger them, and if someone who hates you does work for you, not only do they do a shitty job but they will probably forever try to haunt you.

pt 2 incoming

>>16931551
i disagree. necromancy from everything ive read on it is more dependent on the dead themselves and not their bodies for how it works as a mantia.
yes, its spirit work too but its divination from knowledge from the dead. the bones, the entrails, those arent them anymore. and divining from death and not the dead is not necromancy because nekro means " dead " in the language that the term was coined and death is " thanatos " and thus that would be some sort of Thanatomancy.
The fact that those mediums are using dead things is just a by-product of most divinatory tools or tools in general being made of dead ( such as wood or paper made from a tree ) or non-living ( such as stone ) materials and these ones being chosen for - amongother things - their connection to life.
Augury - The animal is teaching you jack shitthrough it. Its based on and solely applies to readingthe entrails of Sacrificed Animals through them being connected to gods or God then ( whomever they were sacrificed to )

>>16931561
Magic, or a magical system, is a collection of rituals and meditations designed to bring about spiritual experiences.

>>16931569
To an extent yes, this is also in Bhagavad Gita where Krsna is exalted over the realms of the demigods. Even in the Bible God tells the Isrealites through His prophets that even though they worship Ba'al, God still permits the deeds to happen.

But, all things are in God, not all things however like "God" and try to seperate from Him.

In the Gospel of Truth they mention how Oblivion is not of God, but also is of God, but is not. There is a distinction between moral conduct and immoral standards.

So what reason would one need to take practions in magic that hold a higher moral conduct? Many people use it for their own benefit to extents that it is not in any way devotion to God but rather a selfish intent to some degree. Care to give me some insight?

>>16931572
And also, what would be yours guys comment on what i learned from one of the goetics? When asked about who have they been before they were enslaved, he said that they were practically all part of the same "famiily". He also mentioned that there are distinc families of spirits, and the one worshipped around the middle eastern region can be regarded as sumerian. He also said that the summerian language was not influenced by them, but the hebrew and arabic languages (he did not say arabic but nabatean but it is technically proto-arabic) were.
He said they all belonged to the 'sumerian" family, but not all were part of the pantheon, which was worshiped. He said that for a semi long time the hierarchy within the family was balanced, with some changed when one of the spirits stole some tablet (tablet of fate i think he called it) but there wasnt any real power struggle. Then over time, the younger gods wanted more power, and one of them was Yahweh. He was not too powerfull of a god, but he found a way to power - finding his own followers. Once he gained followers, he decided to be more generous than the other gods and would grant bigger gifts to his followers, which meant he weakened himself. But through granting such feats, the small group quickly grew and at that point there was not really much return. He said that quickly he gained acces to the tablet and stole it, killing the keeper of it.
through controlling the tablet and slowly gaining followers amongst the youngest of the gods, he waged war on the other gods. In short time he became powerfull enough to enslave them, but apparently he did not only do that. He also had changed their appearance to humiliate them. The worst treatment was given to baal, who, as told to me by the goetic, now hates everything because of that. He said he used to be the most beutifull of gods but had been changed in the frog thing form. Some gods regained their old forms while others had not
PT4 incoming

>>16931551
as a further point in favour of my argument if you look doen to the next post after yours Surgo is agreeing with you. Though Stoppped Clock Syndrome is still a thing the fact that he is agreeing with you is a serious indicater that your facts are at least a little off. as prolific and opinionated a poster as he is, out of reading more than 100 of his posts at least he was right or had a valid point perhaps three times at most

>>16931572
Creator god YHWH supposedly refers to Annunaki, many people believe we were created by "aliens" or whatever

Gnostic God master race!

Either way God is in all things, the true breath of life

>>16931588
also when asked about the begining of time, he has told me that first of all, there was a vast nothing, out of which water emerged through a crack. from the water, land rised but somehow this process was not going through stages, but the land emerged out of the water, and water out of land. Once the instantanous process was ended, the sky was filled with the air.

the spirit i worked with was Glasya Labolas. He also told me to note to never call him in that name if i talk to him. Apparently it is some sort of word play/twist of his original name, caarinolas (but he did not have a problem with calasyabolas).

>>16931580
If you have some books which offer some clarification on the topic I'll happily add them to my reading list.

>>16931595
thats actually what he told me was wrong. He had told me that YHWH was never a major god in their family until the war he started.
but again, this is scrying and i might have personal gnosis'd all that.
it was fun anyways, scrying this kind of info is really interesting to me.

>>16931603
What do u use to scry

>>16931585
Haha the things I practice are not the things I am. I'm discordian and when pressed on why things are the way they are I am more than happy to respond with the holy words "I don't know man, I didn't do it."

>>16931532
You sound a tad schizophrenic.

>>16931601
i would love to. ill try to get some ready for you soon.
there is one caveat to this though: much of whats published with the label of " necromancy " in the last few hundred years is actually at least partially mislabelled over historical confusion between it and " nigrimancy " ( " black arts " or " dark divination " ) so theres a few wtf moments where you wind upthinking youre getting a book about divining through the dead and wind up with something involving a surprising amount of Demons being invoked or worked with for it. Sometimes even without the dead involved at all or just tangentially.
Its one of the most frustrating things about being a necromancer in this day and age. Even more than people assuming youre raising corpses or enslaving the dead and things like that ( which i can assure you i have many moral safeguards within myself to keep myself from ever doing in my practice )

>>16931610
black reflective surface. Im not a purist when it comes to scrying since
>obsidian mirror
500 fucking polish shekels
>and its only 7 inches in diameter
so for this i use my laptop.

The half about the story of the war was scryed, or more so shown in visions in shamanic trance. I left my body and visited him. Caarinolas looks most similar to the sumerian depiction of anzu, except realistic and not so crude. He also claims to be the brother of anzu who he said was killed by YHWH.

>>16931622
That unfortunately didn't answer my question at all.

>so what reason would one need to take practions in magic that hold a higher moral conduct? Many people use it for their own benefit to extents that it is not in any way devotion to God but rather a selfish intent to some degree. Care to give me some insight?

That's all I need to know

>>16931627
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't crazy

But once you know the symbology and the system of magic is can be easy to decode hidden symbolism in advertising, chemistry, and a whole lot about people and their personality.

File: 1428641713645.jpg (18KB, 178x335px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 178x335px

>>16928642
>>16928579
The only three people who seem to have a grudge against Bardon are the crowleykek tripfags. I'm not sure why, since they've admitted multiple times that they've never even read Initiation into Hermetics, or mastered a single exercise in the book.

The term "bardonite" is also confusing. Nobody actually seems to care about Bardon himself, and since people who practice IiH don't seem to set up lodges and shower themselves in meaningless grades, I'd be hard presses to say Bardon has "followers" in the traditional sense.

>>16931632
Some muhfuggin lore right there.

What techniques do you use to scry?

But according to gnostics I guess they knew about YHWH, and in the Bible there are a few things Daniel and Jesus say about the fact that a lot of this information is covered up.

That is like when Abel offers a sacrifice and The Devil says to God "see, look what he gave me" and God says "No, he means to give it to me, but can only see you" which explains God's distance from Earth, but yet how He still holds us dear to His heart.

Perhaps if people knew about tetragramaton(YHWH) they would be shattered in their beliefs, but all religions aim at what is essentially the same divine incarnation that links each individual to their own experience, yet all are the same so to speak. This would also explain why the jews at the time did not like Jesus at all, but not recorded in the Bible because Jesus is a man of controversy, even 2000years later

>>16931633
I think you may be confusing reasoning. Why would you assume that the morality of the system would be more of a draw than the effectiveness of the rituals? . And please don't get started with that whole schizotypal "I can't define morality but everyone who practices magic is immoral" shit again.

>>16931628
With some of things /x/ has requested in the past it would be difficult to surprise me with what shows up in some books. Please fire away.

>>16931657
I can define morality but who else cares about that haha

I just want to hear what your answer

What higher moral conduct benefits man and God and humanity when practicing magic? In what way does it promote devotion to God? What way is it a selfless action detached from ego, to at least benefit others before your self?

>>16931652
well what is interesting, Caarinolas made it reaaaaly clear that there is a difference between YHWH in the judaic tradition and the christian one. Apparently, christ did not follow YHWH, But used his name (lord) as a concept tha basicly meant universe, love, compassion etc. Caarinolas said he does not hold much grudges against jesus, and that neither do most of the goetics.

I basicly do a similar ritual as with an evocation except i do not invoke YHWH ( as i do not believe or take refuge in him) and once i have finished the evokation i continue chanting the chant associated with Caarinolas, Elant Ehpar secore en ca Glasya Labolas ( which he said to replace with caarinolas, baeli, garashi or calasyabolas)

all of that while staring at the scrying mirror, waiting for signs. Usually i sort of loose vision and see it as a vision inside my head. i become unaware of my body and get in a dream like state, but im aware of my body at the same time. Weird feeling.

The second technique is shamanic journeying/trance. i basicly astrally project to the entity and speak with it, sometimes it gives me visions similar to the scrying but i am then an invisible, untouchable participnt in them. sort of like if i was watching a movie as one of the characters, but the other characters cant see me notice me and i cant influence the action.

>>16931664
in what way does devotion to god benefit man? In what ways is devotion to god moral and magic is not? if i use the force of demons to heal somone, how are you different if you pray to your god to heal a person?
seriously m8. think.

>>16931673
Thanks man that was pretty helpful.

It bothers me when people say "God" everyone makes all these different assumptions and you know, may be one day there will be unity, not some nwo religion but you know, a place where we all can be friends.

>>16931569
Basically.

>>16931572
>The traditional approach to the goetia, as it is written in the goetia itself, is to use the power of YHWH and his minions to usurp the Demons and usr them as slaves in all practicality.

Sorta. You're supposed to have attained to the Holy Guardian Angel, which means that by default you're their superior. It's a very Aristotelian view.

>I always find that really difficult to understand. Why would we use YHWH to enslave the, if they hate YHWH enough that theyd do much more and much more eficiently if simply asked and offered some offering?

Because they don't hate YHVH. They're not demons. It's said literally in the book, they're spirits; Providence allows for mortals to communicate with them, that's all.

>Why not work with them as 'friends' or atleast from amore friendly approach?

That's how it's supposed to be. The bindings and curses are for when what you're trying to do isn't aligned with their nature, and you're stupid enough to think force will change anything.

>generally if you enslave someone you anger them, and if someone who hates you does work for you, not only do they do a shitty job but they will probably forever try to haunt you.

Read the Goetia in the context of the Keys of Solomon. Ars Paulina specifically.

>>16931583
What is spiritual experience?

>>16931585
Difference in perspective. Being a part of God, I cannot be God, but I also at the same time am defining, in some extent, what God is.

>>16931676
Devotion to God is ultimate, selfless, and with great honor. "God" can heal you, and so can't a demon, but the Most High God is above all the demigods.

Men with demons who heal work in the mode of passion, ignorance, and desire. "If you give me this, I give you that" or just straight up no rules enforced to invoke a demonic power, because you want something that bad and have no mindfulness in the process.

With God however, it is simple as just asking.

In the mode of material goodness, one can naturally benefit those around Him through God and through Himself.

What I am asking here is an explaination on what type of magic has moral conduct that is based from selfless action rather than intent of gain of some form of prosperity

>>16931684
But we cannot give God a definition. Who is to say that these spirit beings are actually working for our benefit? Yes, we may gain from the help they give us, but what if the deception is real in this scenario? Some angels are very good at this very thing. I guess a level of trust and knowing between the two, whatever I won't elaborate too much on this.

I just want to know how magic can ultimately align with higher moral conduct, selfless devotion to God, rather than wholesome gain in sone aspect.

From my understanding a ritual is just an affirmation of things we are capable of already.

>>16931673
that first line makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. but at the same time reinforces my view that Valentinian Gnosticism was the best theological understanding of Jesus and whom he was actually working for. Like he seemed he wasnt jewish by religion but simply ancestry ( and arguably if " immaculately concieved ", still only jewish on his blessed mothers side and on the other... something else entirely, possibly even something new to the material universe or at least this planet ). They called his father " The Unbegotten Father " or " the Alien God " or " the Stranger God ". The latter two as a direct rebuttal of his ever appearing in history before and to prevent confusion between him and the Abrahamic God. Strangely enough the best arguments for their case are located throughout the Old Testament, New Testament, and even moreso by comparing them

>>16931684
" THE FIRST PART is a Book of Evil Spirits, called GOETIA, showing how he
bound up those Spirits, and used them in general things, whereby he obtained great
fame."

notice bound. Also, according to jewish lore salomon bound the 72 demons in a brass vessel. He enslaved them.

Now ill be quoting parts of the conjuration given in the goetia:

>, I do strongly command thee, by BERALANENSIS, BALDACHIENSIS,
PAUMACHIA,

command thee is where im getting at.

>I do
strongly command thee, by Him Who spake and it was done, and unto whom all
creatures be obedient
> Also I, being made after the image of GOD, endued with
power from GOD and created according unto His will, do exorcise thee by that most
mighty and powerful name of GOD, EL, strong and wonderful;

you see the picture? you invoke it in the name of god. You use YHWH to command him, therefore practically enslaving the Entities

>>16931588
>When asked about who have they been before they were enslaved, he said that they were practically all part of the same "famiily". (...)

Cultural circles. They probably fall under the same 1-3 Governors.

>He said they all belonged to the 'sumerian" family, but not all were part of the pantheon, which was worshiped.

Now THAT I find suspicious.

>Then over time, the younger gods wanted more power, and one of them was Yahweh. He was not too powerfull of a god, but he found a way to power - finding his own followers.

Now that sounds like roleplay. Have you checked whether your own preconceptions have been influencing the vision?

>>16931632
>polish shekels
Just call them Polands.

>>16931640
>The only three people who seem to have a grudge against Bardon are the crowleykek tripfags.

I don't have a grudge against Bardon. I do, however, recognize his training material for what it is: barely workable drivel. Sure, it has some good parts (like the attributions between Hebrew Letters and the Parts of the Body, but otherwise, it's much better to just stick with the Keys of Solomon and older sources. Agrippa, Iamblichus, Plato, the works.

>I'm not sure why, since they've admitted multiple times that they've never even read Initiation into Hermetics, or mastered a single exercise in the book.

Except the exact opposite happened, and reasons were given, over and over and over again. Reading comprehension much?

>>16931664
>What higher moral conduct benefits man and God and humanity when practicing magic?

Taking the action which is most beneficial to everyone. Durr.

>In what way does it promote devotion to God?

It doesn't.

>What way is it a selfless action detached from ego, to at least benefit others before your self?

It is impossible for the self to take selfless action. You're picking holes in a void.

>>16931685
>Devotion to God is ultimate, selfless, and with great honor.
Also impossible.

>>16931685
men without compassion, ignorance and desire do not require neither god nor demons. Thats where you logically fail.
What makes a god ever so high apart from his saying he is so good and great? the fact he tells you he is so good and great?

>With God however, it is simple as just asking.
No. You also give something in turn for his help, you give devotion. Devotion in the spirit world is giving energy. The demons that you see as evil, also usually ask only for that.

any type of prayer or magic is not selfless as it is always some sort of interest.

Also magick can be without any demons. It can be simply through the power of word and mind. Perfection of the uttering of mantras can be effective magick

>>16931694
>But we cannot give God a definition.
Sure we can. Everything that I am not, is collectively God.

>>16931701
>You use YHWH to command him, therefore practically enslaving the Entities
Which is only possible once you have attained to the Holy Guardian Angel, and therefore, only once you are entirely aligned with Providence.

The misunderstanding here is that Solomon was granted authority by God, and that exalted him in the hierarchy above the Spirits. Meaning, whatever he says, goes, as long as it's not entirely unreasonable.

Much like a promotion in the Army -- your underlings aren't your slaves, but they're there to do what you need them to, in order to further the goals of High Command.

>>16931714
>Now that sounds like roleplay. Have you checked whether your own preconceptions have been influencing the vision?

im not really interested in judaism and never have so i didnt have preconceptions about this desu. the whole idea was to get some info from the other side and then read the Torah and learn the YHWH side of the argument.

>>16931714
You think it is impossible to selflessly attempt to devote ones self wholly to God? Just a minute ago you guys said God was in everything, now all the sudden it is impossible to be devoted to One Whole Lord but very possible to work magic spells and such things?

All I want to know is if magic will bring you closer to "God" in anyway, and what type of magic is a selfless aim with no selfish benefit?

It is easy to at least attempt selfless action, and aim prayers towards One God, and most definately not impossible.

You would literally be hypocritical if you deny this but say magic is superior or inferior, both methods have the same amount of logical sense applied to the non-magician.

>>16931722
but the spirits would work willingly if it was so, and they dont.

>>16931493
>Xir
>Not Zhe
Triggered

>>16931720
There is One Superior God, for all beings, transcendental of form, Source if you want to call it. Devotion is an action that is appearantly different than magic, magic implies sacrifice, and if I am correct many people do give freely to "demons" for gain, people in service to God literally just do it to please Him with humility.

Hence the prayer or mantra, this is what I am getting at, words, and mind.

However I am asking you guys what type of magic implies selfless devotion, no demons, no demigods?

>>16931714
>I don't have a grudge against Bardon.
lel.
Weren't you the guy who "wrote a review" after reading the first five pages, after everyone called you out on dismissing a work you never read?
You clearly don't hate Bardon because of IiH, you hate IiH because Bardon wrote it.
So, again, I'm not sure where all this hatred is stemming from. You could gain a lot by practicing the first two steps to understand yourself and your feelings a bit better on this issue.

>>16931724
Fairnuff. The thing which ticks me off is the "followers give power" thing. It's not how things work.

>>16931726
>You think it is impossible to selflessly attempt to devote ones self wholly to God?

It is impossible to take *any* selfless action. Anything you do grants you some kind of benefit.

>Just a minute ago you guys said God was in everything, now all the sudden it is impossible to be devoted to One Whole Lord but very possible to work magic spells and such things?

Check my definition of God above. That I treat things such doesn't mean that I am going to be selfless about it.

>All I want to know is if magic will bring you closer to "God" in anyway, and what type of magic is a selfless aim with no selfish benefit?

There is none. Just like it's impossible to breathe without being selfish at the same time.

>It is easy to at least attempt selfless action, and aim prayers towards One God, and most definately not impossible.

Oh absolutely impossible. Any action you take, whether devotion or otherwise, is in the intention of furthering ones own goals, be it enforcing ones morality or ones beliefs.

>You would literally be hypocritical if you deny this but say magic is superior or inferior, both methods have the same amount of logical sense applied to the non-magician.

Except magic doesn't deny basic facts of life. If you can give me an example of ONE selfless act that doesn't even remotely involve selfish ends, then I'll concede that you're right.

>>16931728
...they do. I haven't had even one instance where I would have to do anything more than tell them what to do.

>>16931734
Yup, that's me. I still haven't seen anyone support or explain why Bardon equates the Fire element with literal Electricity. That's a factual error. Further, his system is slow, his theory is lacking at best, and the exercises are... let's just say, not really results heavy. Oh and he gives entirely no explanation as to what half the concepts he references mean.

>>16931733
Pleasing nothing (your describtion of god is emptiness) and selfless devotion to it is... pointless. Once you realize it is not only god who is without cause, bornless and lacks being is when you realize the supreme reality of being. You then also realize you aswell, are bornless and without substance, and therefore have no ego to act on. Since you are left egoless, you act on behalf of all being, nenefiting all sentient creatures.

why would i need god to be moral?

also, there is no such magick you search for

>>16931747
>Since you are left egoless
Impossible. Unless you are advocating hardcore brainwashing regimens a'la $cientology.
In which case, yeah, but that also means you're an empty, obedient shell of a man.

>>16931746
God is selfless and is merciful to many beings who are suffering who appearantly do not deserve such kindness.

I don't understand the problem here just answer the question, I didn't ask for your opinion on whether one can be selfless or not, I am asking what type of magic will bring you closer to God, and implies the "least" amount of selfish gain?

>>16931746
... are you implying a slave who is scared of being killed is going to object? the fact they do it does not mean they do so happily and dont hate you and YHWH.
According to them, they are not serving willfully if by name of YHWH, and they hate him deeply.
Then again, that may have been personal gnosis.

>>16931720
> Also magick can be without any demons.
> Perfection of the uttering of mantras can be effective magick
but if I chant a mantra I am getting help from the demon shiva??? what is the deal with that?
>>16931733
what if I praise satan with humility?
all this magic lore and metaphysics is making me confused

>>16931747
Good thing Buddha said not to believe in anything because it is written down because that is a bunch of bs.

I know my God, He has form, and no form, hence ultimate transcendence. The force within all and on the outside, constantly revealing itself to all, the all and above the all. Before the first, and the first. The essential concept of each individual trying to find the "One" and the "being" that is the fundamental aspect of Absolute Truth.

>>16931753
ok ill go full buddhist here.
You are blinded by your ego so hard you believ in its existance. If you ever truly meditate, and just watch your mind, your realize there is no substance to it, there truly is no ego where the ego should be. In fact, your mind is truly so empty, that even the emptiness is not there.

You are naturally egoless actually, except the illusion of duality leads you to believe you have a self, some sort of soul, mind stream.

>>16931757
>God is selfless
So God isn't selfish. Which means God isn't Everything, or in Everything.
Which means this isn't God.

>>16931759
>>... are you implying a slave who is scared of being killed is going to object?

You're assuming they're scared. What of?
Like, imagine this: you lead a regular, infinitely long life as a spirit. Then you're captured by some idiot in the desert for like, two or three millenia. That's seconds from their lifespan.

>the fact they do it does not mean they do so happily and dont hate you and YHWH.

You're personalizing something infinitely bigger and more complex than we can comprehend. I don't see a reason for doing this.

>According to them, they are not serving willfully if by name of YHWH, and they hate him deeply.
>Then again, that may have been personal gnosis.

Seems to be. That said, I never had a quarrel with any of those entities. I've had them cuss me out, but even that was with more of a friendly "you're doing it wrong, try another way" feel.

>goes ulercha

>>16931770
>You are blinded by your ego so hard you believ in its existance.

I don't need to believe it's existence. It's in the language. When I say "you", I am referring to the sum total of what parts constitute that organism. In the same way, when I say "I", I am referring to a collective of parts which harmoniously work together.

>If you ever truly meditate, and just watch your mind, your realize there is no substance to it, there truly is no ego where the ego should be.

You're dissociating at that point. If you watch "your" mind, then "you" are watching it. I.e. the ego.

>In fact, your mind is truly so empty, that even the emptiness is not there.

Then there is no mind, and you become a shell; see the conditioning regimens of Scientology.

>You are naturally egoless actually, except the illusion of duality leads you to believe you have a self, some sort of soul, mind stream.

I don't think so. There is not one human in the world who doesn't have an ego. Because if they didn't, all that's left is automatic function with no ability for self-reflection. Which means you can't meditate if you have no ego.

>>16931726
dude, we are on different paths and with different ideas of theology ( yeah, im a filthy polytheist but please hear me out anyway. im also a bible thumb and have a lot of knowledge of various religions and magickal paths ) but i have some info that would be helpful to you.
Theurgy. Most magick traditions are this to a small but usually quite large extent. And the word for it means " God Work " or " Divine Work ". Its non-denominational despite being a greek word because it was a definition coined for an innumerable amount of different traditions.
And heres the thing about Theurgy: Morality is not only obligatory for practicing it effectively, obligatory or at leasthighlyrecommended for truly mastering it, but also one of its main goals for what to do with it.
The Mysteries, Alchemy, Qabalah, Rosicrucianism, Christian Mysticism, they are all mostly or even all simply forms of Theurgy, with major focuses on self-improvement and an understanding that a large amount of self-improvement is thatofthe moral level and that of ones connection to the divine.
Good ones for monotheism ( just offthe top of my head here ) are definitelythe Hermetic Path, Rosicrucianism, Alchemy, whateverthe Freemasons are up to lately unless certain conspiracy theorists are right aboutthem being Luciferians in the satanic sense ( i honestly dont think they are though. they seem quite sincere in their monotheistic deist views ), and theres even a lot of overlap betweenthose traditions for their shared focus on God and few conflicts between them.
The thing is, noneof it needsto be used for selfish ends or evenpractical ones on any other level but getting closer to your creater. The other stufffor that is simply because life happens, sometimes people need it, and the authors would rather you have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Also, arguably as an object lesson of the power of the divine and that it is more tangible than outsiders think it is.

>>16931771
Selfless as in He does a lot for a lot of people, and when people realized He helped them out they sat "wow did I really deserve that" and then they rekindle their spirit.

Does magic bring you closer or farther away from God? Which magic least promotes selfish intent? Very simple questions

The divine name resides within the crown.

>>16931785
>Selfless as in He does a lot for a lot of people, and when people realized He helped them out they sat "wow did I really deserve that" and then they rekindle their spirit.

Well, Bill Gates does a lot for a lot of people. Would you say he's selfless without being selfish at the same time? That's far from being a quality of a God.

>Does magic bring you closer or farther away from God?

How do you define God, and how do you define magic? Once you establish that, I can answer.

>Which magic least promotes selfish intent? Very simple questions

Depends on how you define and categorize magic.

>>16931760
kek'd
You dont know anything about hinduism do you? mantras have nothing to do with shiva. Theres billions of mantras, and atleast three systems of how to create mantras for your own purposes.
alse there are buddhist mantras which are not praising any buddha or any being.

learn before appearing uninformed m8.

>>16931760
the buddha also said to check before you say, and if you do what the buddha perscribed you will find that there is no god, or any other concept, or anything in else in general. There is no nothing either.
The buddha said that in only one sutra, if it is even in the sutras ( and i will not go searching for it for this particular argument to check) but his most prominent text that encompasses all his dharmas is the Heart Sutra.

and the last point ill make, when he said not to believe in anything because it is written, he meant that it is impossible to write the ultimate truth, so the path of seeking through practice is more important than any concept. Nirvana is indescribeble in any conceptual terms.

>>16931771
first of all, their life is not infinite. They die just like humans do. Youre also going at the subject from the view that YHWH is the only god, the formless thing, the source, which they disagree with completly. From your perspective god is infinetly bigger and complex, but according to the beings that is what he wishes you to know, and trully he is just one of them who has gained more power, and the tablet thing.

>>16931791
No Bill Gates is a human being. We all have a piece of God within us, but that was a 0/10 example. How do I define God? >>16931768 and defining God limits our perception, the goal is Oneness. All you guys do is beat around the bush, but my question was answered, I guess thanks to ->>16931784
Simple answer, straightforward, and does not beat around the bush nor waste my time.

>>16931800
hey buddhist bro... youre saying a lot of stuff that makes a lot of sense and disagreeing with a great deal of patience with someone most of us including myself consider our village idiot and enemy of all things true... can i like email you sometime? maybe add you on skype or something because i would really like to trade opinions and findings on stuff?

[email protected]
add me bro. i wont cause you to regret it

>>16931781
>uses language as a basis of an objective argument
kek'd hard. Language is made by humans, it has no physicality to it. it is also created by people who believe in the ego, so no wonder they found names for it.
your second argument doesnt make sense ither, if i were to not use those words i wouldnt be able to speak at all. In buddhism we call it practical means, you explain ways to attain the knowledge through conceptual knowledge, but the truth is not conceptual and cant be described in conceptual terms.
There is no mind, you got that right. There is no shell either. There is no no-mind either, and there is no no-shell at the same time.
and the last point is just not true. just because you realize there was no ego to begin with shanges not that much. You have no ego right now, are you able to meditate?

and lastly ill quote the heart sutra:
"Body is nothing more than emptiness,
emptiness is nothing more than body.
The body is exactly empty,
and emptiness is exactly body.
The other four aspects of human existence --
feeling, thought, will, and consciousness --
are likewise nothing more than emptiness,
and emptiness nothing more than they.

All things are empty:
Nothing is born, nothing dies,
nothing is pure, nothing is stained,
nothing increases and nothing decreases.

So, in emptiness, there is no body,
no feeling, no thought,
no will, no consciousness.
There are no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined.

There is no ignorance,
and no end to ignorance.
There is no old age and death,
and no end to old age and death.
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain."

>>16931800
>first of all, their life is not infinite. They die just like humans do.

How do you know?

>Youre also going at the subject from the view that YHWH is the only god, the formless thing, the source, which they disagree with completly.

I'm not. What does that have to do with anything?

>From your perspective god is infinetly bigger and complex, but according to the beings that is what he wishes you to know, and trully he is just one of them who has gained more power, and the tablet thing.

Nope. From my perspective, Nature is God. Literally the laws of physics to which we all are subjected. Daemons are nothing more than self-sustaining, electromagnetic arrangements -- that's why the Goetics are planetary spirits, and not just generic imaginary things, like tulpas.

>>16931813
>>first of all, their life is not infinite. They die just like humans do.
>How do you know?


it is the buddhist belief and also the fact i spoke to one and he told me of his brother being killed?

>>16931791
Its not like I don't like the faceoff duel, I am just saying answering questions with "well it depends" implies all kinds of conditions.

All I wanted to know was a selfless (to the best of ones ability) system of magic that benefits the connection between the Oneness of God and the one doing the magic, as well as humanity or general sphere of close people as a whole.

I get the idea of demigods and angels assisting, however, due to experience (for the sake of explaination) the nature of my question is asking the wholesome connection to the oneness of God and a most auspicious intention to devote and love a kind and compassionate All Pervading, Transcendent "God" of some form or no form, I don't know, I am not going to give "Him" one word or a bunch of words or no words, the source of wisdom.

>>16931732
you know what i find hilarious and asful at the same time? when people actually take the timeto research that terminology - which is intended to help people who dont identify as either of the big two genders to feel normal, understood and accepted - to justthrow it at people they dont like as an insult. its basically them being a determined and vehement dickhead rather than a passive andknee-jerk version of one.
they researched that shit that was meantto be helpful intheir goal of being a complete asshole to someone

>>16931830
What?

>>16931811
>>uses language as a basis of an objective argument

Yes, I am using language. As are you, incidentally. That you use the word "objective" shows your misunderstanding of epistemology.

How do you know anything?

There's a stimulus,
your nerves interpret the information as something (first layer of abstraction),
the information is transmitted up the spinal cord and abstracted further, describing where it's located (second layer of abstraction),
your brain interprets it as a feeling (third layer of abstraction),
your conscious mind (the recursive self-referential process) recognizes the information it gets, and abstracts it into language "I feel pain" (fourth layer of abstraction).

You seem confused on the part where for all practical purposes the abstraction fulfills its role perfectly towards the ends of the organism.

>kek'd hard. Language is made by humans, it has no physicality to it. it is also created by people who believe in the ego, so no wonder they found names for it.

The concept of "ego" didn't exist until Freud. Get with the times.

>your second argument doesnt make sense ither, if i were to not use those words i wouldnt be able to speak at all. In buddhism we call it practical means, you explain ways to attain the knowledge through conceptual knowledge, but the truth is not conceptual and cant be described in conceptual terms.

Then the truth is unknowable, as you cannot consciously grasp it at any time. And if you can, then, by all means, please give a real-life example.

>There is no mind, you got that right. There is no shell either. There is no no-mind either, and there is no no-shell at the same time.

Sure. There's just body, and we can dissociate from direct sensory experience for the sake of higher level thinking (i.e. abstraction). Drugs such as LSD and Mushrooms bring us down towards more direct ways of experiencing our own neurology and stimuli.

>You have no ego right now, are you able to meditate?

No. It changes everything.

Hi Senpai!

Just curious where is a good resource for tarot card understandings? I honestly don't trust the majority of teenage girl daily mail like definition websites online.
Much appreciated.

>>16931817
>it is the buddhist belief and also the fact i spoke to one and he told me of his brother being killed?

Have you tried to evoke the one that was killed?
Did you succeed?

I don't buy into group-think much, so to be fair, I wouldn't know either way. But it seems highly unlikely that anything whose name is known can be killed within an EMF, as the name is a record of its particular arrangement (cf. Agrippa).

>>16931824
Go with Christian Mysticism. The Jesuits should be fine for you.

>>16931838
Book of Thoth.
http://hermetic.com/crowley/book-of-thoth/

>>16931838
So senpai turns into senpai now?
Thats annoying..

>>16931809
awesome. thanks for the shout-out. usually i have problems being succinct about magick but ... yeah, that is what it is. and thank you for understanding :)
also i left out qabalah by mistake. it is all about connecting with God and self improvement. to be honest its quite beautiful. the ten sephira mentioned in it arent gods but are ten aspects of the one god to understand him better because looking atthe whole all atonce is too muchfor peopletotake in all at once. but with the understanding that those ten aspects are ten sidesofthe same being itbecomes more clear whatthatone being is, including the stufftheydidnt map :3

>>16931839
No i don't like the notion of being a jesuit

>>16931746
>I still haven't seen anyone support or explain why Bardon equates the Fire element with literal Electricity. That's a factual error.
Which you would learn, had you read more than 10 pages.

>Further, his system is slow
Because you didn't gain magical powers after reading 10 pages and spending 0 time on literally any of the exercises?

>his theory is lacking at best
All ten pages of it that you read?

>and the exercises are... let's just say, not really results heavy.
You mean the exercises that you never even tried?

Let's get real. Your problem isn't with IiH, it's with Bardon.

What is with the extreme hatred for some dead guy you know nothing about, and whose works you never read? It's insane.

>>16931833
ego is a modern term, congrats. But before freud there existed soul, the self, atman and other terms. all of which are just names.
>Yes, I am using language. As are you, incidentally.

but im not. You used the fact of existance of a word for the self, the ego, atman etc as proof it exist. In that logic, if i make a word for a magical unicorn with hares horns rabbit furr thirty legs that flies, is that proof it exist? no.
and youre going in the right direction with the perceiving stimulus. The sensory organs perceive the object, symbol, word and then they have to interpret it and GIVE it meaning. The fact is, the object itself has no meaning, no objective value or self substance in itself, and neither do you nerves, any phenomenon and even the perceivance itself.

and brake, gotta eat

>>16931850
I just like simple... The only thing I know about Kaballah is the Tree of Life and Merkaba, and how earlier Christians where knowing of Hermetics and what not.

It is hard to explain how magic can be useful as a form of self less action so to speak. Many people use forms of gain and different ideas and conceptions cause clashes and stuff.

>>16931856
ahhh, heres the thing though: gain isnt always selfish. and what is percieved as selfish or self-interested may or may not be based on how someone is defining it or practicing it.
becoming a more moral, ethical, amd eise person is a gain. and it is not a selfish gain ni matter how much pleasure it brings you from doing so.

>>16931871
meantto say " andeise ", not amd iese or whatever that was.
the thing is you can easily ( and are encouraged to ) make gains for yourself that are beneficial to society from you gaining those qualaities, improving them, or perfecting them :3

>>16931879
sorry totriple post. mangled the words " am wise " again. so sorry

>>16931881
" and wise ".sorry, ive been up all night fromkeeping weird hours

>>16931871
Perhaps

This whole "right and wrong" depending on the "person" makes sense, but there is also an exclusive "right thing to do" and exclusive "wrong thing to do" isn't it so?

In this mode we are talking about simple goodness, as many intentions in the occult can be good or bad, or both, but we are living in an age were if you don't put a warning label on it people can slip away very easily.

It seems like gold but can actually be a piece of copper, but how does one determine the real value between the two if they both are essentially non dual? Aside from common sense, most would say there is no distinction, but clearly there is a high standard and a low standard, but in today's world the appearantly is no standard whicg is harmful to the flock of humanity when blindly walking into occultism and become selfish in intention.

Just some food for thought thanks guys

>>16931854
>Because you didn't gain magical powers after reading 10 pages and spending 0 time on literally any of the exercises?

I have read all of it.
And, I did just that with Liber O, which is like 8-10 pages long.
It did exactly what it said it would. Can't say the same about Bardon.

>Your problem isn't with IiH, it's with Bardon.
Is it, though?

>>16931855
>But before freud there existed soul, the self, atman and other terms. all of which are just names.

The soul is the memory (cf. Giordano Bruno, Ficino).
The self... duh. If you equate the ego with the self, it does indeed boil down to brainwashing.
Atman -- an entirely different, even more abstract concept, as I understand it. Would you please elaborate on the connection?

>but im not.
>but
>im
>not.
That's language, fgt.

>You used the fact of existance of a word for the self, the ego, atman etc as proof it exist.
Indeed. And it phenomenologically does. Just like the color blue does (which isn't real; it's just how our brains interpret a particular wavelength of the EM spectrum).

>if i make a word for a magical unicorn with hares horns rabbit furr thirty legs that flies, is that proof it exist? no.
It is proof it exists in your mind, and possibly that of the reader, yes.

>The fact is, the object itself has no meaning, no objective value or self substance in itself, and neither do you nerves, any phenomenon and even the perceivance itself.

That's where we differ. Because value is dependent on the observer. What for you is priceless might be worthless for me. The same applies to meaning. As for "self substance", I don't know what you mean. If you mean self-awareness (i.e. that level of abstraction on which the ego is perpetually re-created), then sure, most things lack that.

The issue is, you seem to treat internal processes (emotions, feelings, thoughts, perception, opinions, impression) as something that isn't factual. It does exist, and it does have effects.

>>16931889
If typos bother you there is a delete button on the bottom right hand side of the page. Just click the little check box to the left of your post, then click delete

>>16931896
>there is also an exclusive "right thing to do" and exclusive "wrong thing to do" isn't it so?
No.

>we are living in an age were if you don't put a warning label on it people can slip away very easily.
Why would you put warning labels on anything? If someone's retarded enough to drive while drunk, you think a warning label's going to stop them?

>>16931896
What I am saying is that I know this information would benefit a lot of people, but it is like giving someone a loaded gun. Give it to a good guy, he will defend you, give it to a bad guy, he will kill you.

Not everyone has the "best intentions" but there should be "some" standard to avoid any means of injustice, especially when dealing with the sensitivity of the occult, especially on a place like this.

People used to get killed for sharing these secrets, now you can go on a public domain and talk about them no problem.

how do i awaken my chakras?

>>16931900
>It is proof it exists in your mind, and possibly that of the reader, yes.


improvement. Everything exist in the mind. the world also only exist in the mind. if you relize that, youll see that it is just that, an illusion of existance.
I do not use the existance or syntax of statements as proof, therefore do not use language AS proof of my argument. I use language TO proove my argument, shig.

and we completly disagree on the last part. case close, agree to disagree.

>>16931912
You are entitled to your opinion.

Like I said, giving it to the wrong person won't help anyone

>>16931912
A good friend would take the keys until they are sober enough to drive...

Let that one settle for a second

>>16931919
>Give it to a good guy, he will defend you, give it to a bad guy, he will kill you.
It's more like...
Give it to a smart guy, he'll do something precious. Give it to a stupid dude, he'll die of colon cancer because of Bad Dragon.

>>16931921
>Everything exist in the mind. the world also only exist in the mind
Nope. Your *perception* of the world exists in the mind.
Ask someone to kick you in the balls. See if that only exists in your mind.

>I use language TO proove my argument, shig.
Except you fail to do so. You can't divorce language from logic and from mind, as the mind itself operates on the linguistic associations one builds throughout ones life.

>and we completly disagree on the last part.
Care to elaborate? Are you saying neurological processes aren't real?

>>16931927
Except when you subscribe to natural selection. Then it does.

>>16931933
Good point. It takes a special kind of stupid to have smart friends.

>>16931943
God bless have a good day man

>>16931896
its the choice between right and wrong and wrong that is personal. not theconcepts themselves. many occult philosophies will tell you " morality comes from within " because thats how it works. there is no book large enough to cover all of it for every situation so they try to help you grow a moral compass that can distinguish right and wrong more intuitively while reinforcing the idea that you should " know what you know " ( things that are proveablytrue to you and in general ) and " know what you dont " ( that which is unknown or onlyopinion to or from you for the sake of knowing those parts need further analysis or at least an objective opinion that you do not know themfor certain at that time ) in order to best grow that moral compass as well as know fact from opinion so as to have a clearer view of all things.
its like a liberal arts education. " we dont teach you what to think. we teach you how tothink " in regards to that, because its too important to just spoon feed people incomplete information on without showingthem how to find the rest

File: 1283796816861.jpg (97KB, 348x483px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 348x483px

Jesus needs a warning label. That guy is a dick.

Are there such things as spellbooks? and if so what do I need to know about casting spells, hexes, curses, and things of the sort?

>>16931950
Of course the answer to the situation needs some moral compass of "as long as it does not cause any being suffering" or "this will help one stop suffering" more or less.

Many occult philosopher's are alright, but when you look at how credible they are the truth is we all can write a book about occultism and have it be a big hit no problem, because no one is more adept than another

>>16931905
yup. totallllly should have done that.
why didnt i? simple. ive been up for twelve hours and im drunk. IO Dionysos yo
thanks for the advice though. i will totally pocket that for later :3

>>16931951
Om jai Yesu jai hai!

The only warning label He needs is WARNING: THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE, ANYTHING YOU SAY OR DO CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF GOD, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY ONE WILL BE PROVIDED FOR YOU

>>16931967
EVOIEVOIEVOIEVOI

>>16931964
How about "as long as it contributes to my tribes wellbeing"?

>>16931983
Nigga your tribe? This isnt 500BC man chill out

>>16931964
i disagree though. the occult - like many or most fields - has its specialists and those who were trained well or learned well to the point of having the most understanding of it. in fact the idea thatits all subjective is a mistake. for any field a person needs to be either be well trained, good at educating themselves, or alternatively just be a savante at it for them to be a reliable source onthe subjext or practitioner of it. admittedly there are myriad ways togo about it but there are right and wrong paths. several of each even. id dount at least a dozen of each before i decide to stop counting but its all just based on each one and their wualities and effect on people and the universe

>>16931943
no neurological process have no substance to them, nothng does.
The kick in the balls proves nothing apart from the fact that i own sensory organs and can sense things. There is no substance to the pain though, to the kick, or to the balls.
you fail to prove yours to me too, and i divorce language from logic because when arguing something that cannot be logically explained, that cant be described as a concept because it is a non-concept, i have to divorce language from logic. Also just cause something works in language doesnt mean it works irl, that how math is. different things work differently in different languages and that doesnt mean our world works differently.

>>16931995
If there is no such thing as right or wrong, then there is no such thing as someone being more advanced in occult knowledge than anyone else.

>>16931983
i love that youre misspelling that. keep it up. i dont want you on my path unless a lot about you changes first :3

>>16931791
Bill gates does a lot for tax breaks, and despite his visible disconnection from Microsoft he's still lobbying for them at every level, think there's no kickback? What do you do if you're that rich? You make a legacy to wax over any wrong you've done while making more money.

>>16931999
dude... what do youthink i just said? i said right and wrong are real. i simply said theres multiple paths toreach the right and wrong ways of doing things. and for those paths there are good and bad occultists. the first is ideals,the second is methods, and the fhird are the teachers of both

File: If-the-truth-can-be-told-so-as-to-be-understood-it-will-be-believed.jpg (33KB, 371x372px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 371x372px

>>16931997
What do you mean by "substance"?

>arguing something that cannot be logically explained, that cant be described as a concept because it is a non-concept

A non-concept is a concept as well, which means that you're only using a higher level of abstraction. It's still entirely reasonable, provided you can convey it with words somehow.

>Also just cause something works in language doesnt mean it works irl, that how math is.

Well, yes, we talked about this earlier. Language is a layer of abstraction, rather far from sensory experience.

>different things work differently in different languages and that doesnt mean our world works differently.

Oh, absolutely. However language describes and abstracts the way things work; that's it's function, to communicate things which are practical and useful.

>>16932002
Like what?

>>16932009
>i said right and wrong are real
I have yet to see this being demonstrably proven, be it theoretically or with evidence.

>>16932010
I could literally write a book about occultism right now and have it sell, super easy.
>go to bathroom
>take dump
>bring it to publishing company
>have it sell

>>16932009
Trips have spoken!

There is a right way and a wrong way, and when the time comes you'll know ->>16932010

>>16932010
well the whole reason why the buddha never explained exactly how nirvna is is because it is truly a nn-concept and not an abstract one. we only know what it is similar two, and ways to experience it.
And the last statement is again, dumb. There can be a belief system based on language, or language based on belief system, but both are in essence empty. They have no essence to them, no meaning. because they dont truly exist on their own but emrge out of mutual emergence.
that notion of emptiness can be kind of explained by co-emergence. Nothing can exist by itself. The world cant exist without somone to perceive it, and the perceiver can exist without something to perceive. This means that it is a cyclical process that hapens at the same time, and on their own, neither the perceiver (ego, soul atman, self) exits nor does the world.

>>16931920
crystals. Be sure to boost all your chakras and not just the higher or lower or you will have problems specific to whatever chakra you emphasized or missed.

Don't hold on to them all day 15 minutes a day will do.

you might wanna keep them in a separate room that is far away from where spend you time and is not in a room you pass often, if you are like me.

>>16931955
Yes.

The book and the stuff. Don't do hexes and curses. They can be broken and they rebound with more force than you sent. Only work with the light or suf0fer. Truly.

File: 1438501346200.jpg (128KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 800x800px

>>16932010
If you spent so much time in the occult and didn't have at least one experience that can't be transmitted adequately, or at all, through words, you're doing it wrong.
There's a reason why all the traditions in the East rely on a living teacher and speak of "crazy wisdom."
Examples: the flower sermon, the whole chan/zen, sahaja in Tantric Buddhism, the concept of shaktipat and silent transmission (you get it from silently sitting nearby a master*)
Language is useful, but to a certain point. If you start conceptualizing everything, you're up to your neck in the abyss of hallucinations.

>>16932048
this one gets it.

and nirvana is said to be even more inexplainable than those experiences, but this i dont know. Anyways, Nirvana is unexplainable, beyond words and concepts, its almost purely experiential. the buddha discourages philosophical approach to the attainment of enlightenment because if one becomes so attached to how nirvana should be, and what nirvana really is, he fails to see that nirvana is without any characteristics, it just is.

>>16932042
How do I get my hands on a spellbook? and what are some basic things need to know about spells in general? Is casting a spell as simple as doing some ritual and speaking some incantation? and what are the dangers of spellcasting?

>>16932010
okay. ummm... your wording makes it sound like things i would prefer you change so... holding prejudices towards people whether they apply to me or my kind or not... being so insistent that youre right when facts clearly prove you wrong when confronted with them.... arguing over semantics when the substance of whatis discussed is much more important and especially if itsa matter of nitpicking on the wording and not the point of whatis said.... in case you couldnt tell you started with a blank slate with me and even a couple points towards liking you for being one of thefirst actual thelemites italked toafter reading crowley for years and having carried his crowley-thoth with me for over ten years since then as someone who does tarot as a hobby and interest... ill digress from hyperbole to keep this fair.... i really dont respect your opinion to the pointthatif you ever agree with me gods help me ill check instantly for any discrepancies on what i believe on it just to be sure...... sorry to be so blunt. but at least im sayingit to your face and... you know im bullshitting you and people can change and... im sorry if any of that was below the belt but think back if you think its uncalled for for what ithink of you atthis point. but ... i mostly just disagree with you on stuff and id prefer to just debate stuff so lets do that.
As for right and wrong being real things most philosophers actually agree on it, so do most people, but more importantly the theory holds up so long as one has some kind of standard of what right and wrong are for people or society, my favourites being the epicurian principle ( known as the pleasure principle in ethics ) of the most pleasure to the most people with the lease suffering possible over the most time. responsible hedonism but not in a debased sense but in the sense of keeping happy and healthy the longest and even going through necessary unpleasantness like vaccines or weight lifting for better rewards later

Simple question, why hermetics?
What will a deep knowledge of hermetics give me?

I've never gotten a clear, concise answer to that from anyone claiming to have knowledge in the subject.
I am interested in it, and I recently picked up a copy of Introduction into hermetics as adviced, but I'd like a general tl;dr in the effects of hermetics.

>>16932026
>nirvna is is because it is truly a nn-concept and not an abstract one

Well, it is a concept. In the same way, you can't explain what pain is, however pain does exist as a concept.

>There can be a belief system based on language, or language based on belief system, but both are in essence empty.

You have yet to elaborate on what you mean by "essence"; that seems to be a core element of your worldview, so without knowing what it is, I can't properly understand.

>they dont truly exist on their own but emrge out of mutual emergence

That's agreeable.

>>that notion of emptiness can be kind of explained by co-emergence. Nothing can exist by itself. The world cant exist without somone to perceive it, and the perceiver can exist without something to perceive.

Sure. And even if it could exist without being perceived, it would be unknown, and therefore devoid of meaning.

>This means that it is a cyclical process that hapens at the same time, and on their own, neither the perceiver (ego, soul atman, self) exits nor does the world.

That doesn't make much sense. Do you mean to say that by removing ones sensory organs (i.e. becoming an entity that doesn't perceive), the universe stops existing?

That's Ayn Rand tier insane.

>>16932048
>If you spent so much time in the occult and didn't have at least one experience that can't be transmitted adequately, or at all, through words, you're doing it wrong.

Or I just have a proper vocabulary, and use dictionaries a lot.

>There's a reason why all the traditions in the East rely on a living teacher and speak of "crazy wisdom."
>Examples: the flower sermon, the whole chan/zen, sahaja in Tantric Buddhism, the concept of shaktipat and silent transmission (you get it from silently sitting nearby a master*)

Yeah. Interestingly, if you look at the language patterns involved, you will notice that all of those things are highly permeated with hypnotic elements. The whole process is built around expanding ones consciousness of ones neurology and automatic behaviors which occur within oneself (i.e. the body).

>Language is useful, but to a certain point. If you start conceptualizing everything, you're up to your neck in the abyss of hallucinations.

If you don't conceptualize everything, how can you claim to be able to transmit and communicate your knowledge?

And I mean knowledge. What you described above is not knowledge. It is an experience, and over time, it becomes a skill. Doing just autogenic training over a period of time should have similar, albeit weaker (due to context), results.

>>16932060
I highly recommend reading up on hypnosis, brainwashing, and just how important language is.

File: loki.jpg (430KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1000x1000px

>>16932048
Yep.

>>16932115
okay. i used to do hermetic magick for about two years after being atheist, atheist, laveyan satanist ( i left them for bring too right wing and selfishness not suitting me ) wiccan again and then hermetic for two years before going wiccan then hellenist for four years now ( im not a flake. i just sort of explored different things at different times and tried to learn from all of it and did for quite a bit of it ) and Hermetic is actually really beautiful and besides the connection it gives to God in the qabalistic sense of being omnipresent in everything and everyone its also great for expanding the mind in the sense of understanding the higher concepts of the universe but also in processing it and understanding reality and from there thats a lot of what grants you an ability to improve yourself because you can see things in a more complete context for how you fit into the greater cosmos of those around you and whatyou feel you couldor should improve for the benefit of all, at least in general, such as such basic things as a pleasurable disposition or more importantly not murdering people :). then you kind of build from there ^^

>>16932121
you can remove sensory organs all you want, but what truly perceives is the mind, the conciousness, the process of thinking you call ego, self or atman or whatever else, and you cant cut that out because it is not truly there, and exists solely because there is something to perceive, and there is something to perceive because theres a perceivers, and there is a perceiver because there is something to perceive now, and now theres something to perceive solely because there is a perceiver... and so on.

Essence would be its own root cause. If there existed one thing that could exist on its own, without co-emerging, then it would be full of substance, but there exists no such thing.

The way i sort of conceptualize nirvana and the whole process is this:

Imagine nothingness. truly nothing, just vast space. Now imagine that being filled 100% with any atom, lets just suppose iron. is iron in this universe different fron nothingness in the universe where there is inly nothing? no. because since nothing else exist, iron cannot be perceived, lacks characteristics and is just as empty as nothingness.

Our mind is the same. We are naturally egoless (ego would be thoughts, concept forming, habit forming, sense of self) but for that to exist, there needs to be the duality of perceiving. Nothingness NEEDS somethingness to exist, which could explain the creation of the universe. Out of nothing came something because nothingess cant exist without something.

Nirvana would be a state where you no longer discriminate between that nothing and that something, and in a sense (not in the literal meaning of the words from this part on of the sentence) you achieve a state of empty nothingness devoid of duality of something and nothing.

but that is highly conceptualized and personal explanation, which i find helpfull.

>>16932099
>holding prejudices towards people

I'm far from being actually prejudiced. If my perspective is offensive to you, ignore it. It's not hard.

>being so insistent that youre right when facts clearly prove you wrong

Yeah, no. Ain't changing that. I usually have to sit down and spend some time thinking before I get to a perspective I can accept on things.

>arguing over semantics when the substance of whatis discussed is much more important

There is NOTHING more important than clear communication, especially on these topics. If I can't understand something you're saying, you better know how to explain it. If you can't, or are saying something different than what you mean, the clearly there's a problem.

>sorry to be so blunt. but at least im sayingit to your face and... you know im bullshitting you and people can change and... im sorry if any of that was below the belt but think back if you think its uncalled for for what ithink of you atthis point. but ... i mostly just disagree with you on stuff and id prefer to just debate stuff so lets do that.

Jesus Christ. Go to a hospital. Have them get you a proper spine. You're apologizing for expressing your thoughts and opinions. Let me say that again.

>You're apologizing for expressing your thoughts and opinions.

Do you realize how insane that is? Just speak your mind. Also being more concise wouldn't hurt.

>As for right and wrong being real things (...) the theory holds up so long as one has some kind of standard of what right and wrong are for people or society

So basically you're saying right and wrong are individual perspectives on social standards. Which by definition makes them conceptual, not real (in the sense of them being physical things, like the Sun, the Moon, the Stars).

>>16932099
those are some bad typos. im deleting this. i accidentally said the opposite of what i meant to like " im not bullshitting you " got posted as " im bullshitting you ". i should not drunk type tight now. yall have fun. ill just lurk for now :3

File: odin.jpg (422KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1000x1000px

>>16932088
Find it. Do it right. Yes. Doing bad to another and creating bad karma/or having it rebound because they know magic too or visit a shaman/curandero to have it removed. Reaching further than you grasp and messing yourself up.

>>16932152
That leads me to my final question, Have you done it yourself?

>>16932161
Done what? Whatever the question is then yes in this life or the last.

>>16932148
okay ill agree with you on at least one thing. i need to learn to be more succinct. and as for language youre right. how else are we going to talk about and understand anything?
as for the rest ill talk later and in explained one of the major typos there. i turned off my autocorrect to prevent those kinds of miscommunications for the last week now but it kinda screws you both ways on it and i need to check what ive typed more before posting.

>>16932163
Have you ever casted a spell in your current life? If so, what was it and on what/who?

File: I-cant-preach-Scientism-cause-I-dont-believe-it-I-cant-preach-Buddhism-cause-I-cant-understand-it-Th.jpg (41KB, 371x372px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 371x372px

>>16932141
>what truly perceives is the mind, the conciousness, the process of thinking you call ego, self or atman or whatever else,

You're overgeneralizing here. If you're working with one particular concept, use it. The self isn't the ego isn't the Atman.

>and you cant cut that out because it is not truly there,

Except we have clear research stating that consciousness, a concept of self, and the mind exist. Hell, even the ego exists, since it's simply an abstraction that was fitting to Freud.

>and exists solely because there is something to perceive (...)

Is there *any* proof that anything exists for any purpose whatsoever?
(protip: there isn't)

>Essence would be its own root cause. If there existed one thing that could exist on its own, without co-emerging, then it would be full of substance, but there exists no such thing.

That's Nature. Physis, whose laws we learn by study and research.

>nirvana and the whole process:

>is iron in this universe different fron nothingness in the universe where there is inly nothing? no. because since nothing else exist, iron cannot be perceived, lacks characteristics and is just as empty as nothingness.

Except nothingness by definition cannot exist, therefore this atom of Iron would be the only thing in existence.

>Our mind is the same. We are naturally egoless (ego would be thoughts, concept forming, habit forming, sense of self) but for that to exist, there needs to be the duality of perceiving.

It's called abstraction. Higher order thinking. I think I have grasped the difference in our perspectives. If I understand correctly, nirvana as you describe it is literally the lack of abstraction; you don't derive meaning, you don't do anything else but exist in direct sensory experience.

Would that be correct?

>pic related

>>16932168
Tons. Most or all of them non-verbal. I'm very integrated and don't need to use my words.

>>16932176
I was lying when I said that was my last question. Do spells work immediately? If not how long do I wait, does it vary? Are spells super obvious and dramatic like media makes it seem? Are there spells that make menial labor? easier?

File: threenorns.jpg (126KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1024x1024px

>>16932181
It varies. Yes. It depends on the spell, how much energy you put into it, and its reach. Some spells take years because some things need to come into being first before they can start. At least how I do it.

Some are super obvious and dramatic also. There are slow spells and fast spells. It just depends what you are willing to sacrifice or unwilling to sacrifice. And your foresight. You can set off big spells immediately if you set up the "ingredients" months or years in advance.

I knew 3 years ago, through foresight, that I would need spiritual bomb at some time so I did a wordless spell to set some under my rib cage and a day or two ago the reason I needed it came up so I reached under my rib and pulled them up and made them explode. It upset the demons I made it for.

The best spell for menial labor is one that shores up what you lack. For example if your practice is being staggered because of a mental lack, do a spell for memory (green) or better sleep (blue) or for less work (that can definitely backfire). It depend on the strength of your intent. Physical health and spiritual health are inextricably linked. A deficiency in one will hinder the other.

>>16932169
you're on point with the t. mckenna memes yo, dank af senpai, got me laughing

buddhistbro's thought experiment reminds of the identity of indiscernibles thought experiment

also reminds me of the time I got my philosophy major friend a gram of DMT and he smoked it all in front of me and at the end he was like "i experienced nothing 'indescribable' " -- lol

>>16932212
i think the exact quote was something like, "i don't see how that experience is phenomenologically more difficult to describe than waking or dreaming"

>>16932169
>That's Nature. Physis, whose laws we learn by study and research.

you fail to understand that if there was no one to perceive it, they wouldnt exist, hence co emergence, hence they dont have essence.
>Except nothingness by definition cannot exist, therefore this atom of Iron would be the only thing in existence.
how can it not exist? and iron in that case would be nothingness.
>It's called abstraction. Higher order thinking. I think I have grasped the difference in our perspectives. If I understand correctly, nirvana as you describe it is literally the lack of abstraction; you don't derive meaning, you don't do anything else but exist in direct sensory experience.

not at all, since you cannot describe nirvana. you fail to understand is that any way of me attemting to bring the concept of a no conceptual subject such as nirvana is only a usefull means. A different, less conceptual approach is used in the Zen school of buddhism

Nirvana is the sound of one hand clapping
Nirvana is the sound of a tree falling when no one is there to hear it
and so on.

>Except we have clear research stating that consciousness, a concept of self, and the mind exist. Hell, even the ego exists, since it's simply an abstraction that was fitting to Freud

what evidence? you havent provided any apart from the fact a word i, and you exist. which is not valid proof. in that case, a hare with horns, fangs, flying around your head right now exists and its called afaggotyfuckingproofofyourargumentthatfailsbasiclogic

>>16932211
What is a spiritual bomb? why did it upset those demons?

File: image.jpg (180KB, 640x847px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 640x847px

>>16932234
western philosophy and magic are heavily platonic

you won't really get it until you step out of your eastern bubble

who are you to say essences don't exist? essence precedes existence and emanated according to the first principle

theoria.exe

File: if-that-doesnt-jive-with-your-political-agenda-adjust-your-political-agenda.jpg (29KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 350x350px

>>16932234
>you fail to understand that if there was no one to perceive it, they wouldnt exist, hence co emergence, hence they dont have essence.

Are you saying that perception defines the laws of physics?

>how can it not exist?

There is not one speck of space that is empty. If there is void space, then the space itself exists, and that's not nothingness.

>and iron in that case would be nothingness.

Well, no. By definition it cannot exist.

>what evidence?

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2-3/111.abstract

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296/abstract

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v13/n8/full/nrn3292.html

www.jneurosci.org/content/21/18/RC165.full.pdf

For starters.

If your theoretical understanding collides with experimental and scientific research, then you should be adapting your theory.

>>16932250
I could say the opposite. Ive been in the weatern magic and philosophy bubble and i realized at one point. I was doing magick to have stuff, i wanted stuff to be happy, i was getting stuff and being less happy because after i got something id want more and eas disapointed with what i had. At one point i had to realize that what makes me unhappy is constant wanting. Thats when instead of things i desired pure happyness, and thats why i chode eastern philo bubble.
I just explained why essence doesnt exist
>>16932294
>Are you saying that perception defines the laws of physics?
not at all, im not that retarded. What im saying is that they wouldnt exist if there was no one to perceive them, so they lack self essence. They would also be meaningless if there was no one to perceive them since they would lack characteristics of themselves.

>There is not one speck of space that is empty. If there is void space, then the space itself exists, and that's not nothingness.

how can be sure? Do you know the whole, unending and infinite universe? Also nothingness does exist. Its the vessel which contains all things. Nothing can contain infinity apart from nothing.

>Well, no. By definition it cannot exist.

i was giving a theoretical example m8. Its quite obvious there doesnt really exist a universe made solely out of iron. Dont you get the point i was explaining?

>http://m.scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2-3/111.abstract

did tou even read the article, yet alone the explanation? It is about how and what in our brain is shaped by culture and society....

>http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296/abstract

This one is about how meditation affects the brain...

>http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v13/n8/full/nrn3292.html

this is the only one that can be a valid argument. But still, just that the brain can lovate where it is has nothing to do with it having any essence in itself at all.

Ad verecundiam desu

>>16932371
Tfw forgot trip

>>16932371
many people go from eastern philosophy to western philosophy and claim it's better for them. aren't you basically arguing the same thing in reverse. what grants your claim more authority? you didn't explain why essence doesn't exist, you just regurgitated some tired old formula you heard someone else tell you

>>16931695
>e best arguments for their case are located throughout the Old Testament, New Testament, and even moreso by comparing them

new testament god is an awful lot like the god of the prophets and jesus constantly alludes to to the old testament and the prophets especially

>>16932371
>What im saying is that they wouldnt exist if there was no one to perceive them

So you're saying that perception gives them existence.

>Also nothingness does exist.

Theoretically, in abstraction, yes. In actuality, I am not aware of nothingness existing in any extent.

>Also nothingness does exist. Its the vessel which contains all things.
>the *theoretical* vessel

>Dont you get the point i was explaining?

Nope. I would appreciate if you explained straight up rather than resorting to metaphor.

>It is about how and what in our brain is shaped by culture and society....
Which explicitly includes self-representations, which is what the ego is.

>This one is about how meditation affects the brain...
Which directly deals with self-awareness and self-transcendence.

>But still, just that the brain can lovate where it is has nothing to do with it having any essence in itself at all.
It has everything to do with the concepts of self, ego, and Atman.

Besides, you've yet to provide any support to the idea that anything at all can be autogenic (i.e. created by its own self, as you earlier defined "essence").

>>16932148
>Which by definition makes them conceptual, not real (in the sense of them being physical things, like the Sun, the Moon, the Stars).
>>16932148
Thought you were a materialist?

>>16932246
A spiritual bomb. A explody energy thing. Because they suck. It wasn't a light bomb but it glowed green. Maybe vibrational love or something. I did it instinctively/intuitively.

>>16932595
>Thought you were a materialist?

Kinda in between. I've seen weird shit happen, but that doesn't mean I'll go all nutcase reality-doesn't-real like.

>>16932099
Not that i disagree with you about Surgo, but is this what an heir to the tradition of the great schools at Athens and Alexandria rights like?

>>16932638
>an heir to the tradition
Far as I know, there is no surviving lineage from those times.
Masonry would be our best bet, I'd think. Even that is kinda stretching it.

>>16932642
AFAIK neoplatonism didn't require lineage transmission, so in principle could be re-established

>>16932481
>So you're saying that perception gives them existence.

No, im saying perception gives them existencce, but perception cannot exist without their existance, so they give existance to perception. Do. you. get. it. or should i keep reapeating this argument another ten times?

>Theoretically, in abstraction, yes. In actuality, I am not aware of nothingness existing in any extent.
Alright, fair, but still " nothingness does exist. Its the vessel which contains all things."

>Nope. I would appreciate if you explained straight up rather than resorting to metaphor.

Ok. listen. If i ask you to explain how a chicken looks like using solely properties of magnets, can you do it? cause thats how describeing a nonconeptual idea is using conceptual terms. You may use some metaphors, but thats pretty much as far as it goes.

>Which explicitly includes self-representations, which is what the ego is.
>Which explicitly includes self-representations, which is what the ego is.
>Which directly deals with self-awareness and self-transcendence.

again you are listing CHARACTERISTIC of the ego, the illusionary thing. Ofcourse it has characteristics. So does everything else. But it lacks essence therefore it is empty, devoid of self nature, self existance.

>
Besides, you've yet to provide any support to the idea that anything at all can be autogenic (i.e. created by its own self, as you earlier defined "essence").

THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT. THERE IS NO AUTOGENIC THING IN THE ENTIRETY OF EXISTENCE, HUMAN IMAGINATION CAPABILITIES, THERES 0 THINGS, NOT EVEN ONE, WHICH IS OR CAN BE OR EVEN COULD BE AUTOGENIC. EVERYTHING LACKS ESSENCE AND IS CO EMERGING.

you rustled my jimmies good this time.

>>16932645
>No, im saying perception gives them existencce, but perception cannot exist without their existance, so they give existance to perception.

You can't have both, buddy. On a purely physical level, our perception and bodies are nothing more than complex physical, natural processes. Their interactions and inter-relations have nothing to do with perception.

A tree falling in the forest falls regardless of observers.

>THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT. THERE IS NO AUTOGENIC THING IN THE ENTIRETY OF EXISTENCE, HUMAN IMAGINATION CAPABILITIES, THERES 0 THINGS, NOT EVEN ONE, WHICH IS OR CAN BE OR EVEN COULD BE AUTOGENIC. EVERYTHING LACKS ESSENCE AND IS CO EMERGING.

Then essence doesn't exist in the first place. It's only conceptual. Which means it exists only insofar as it influences the actions of those who understand the concepts; whether that's in a beneficial direction or not is irrelevant.

Thoughts on mind being divorced from matter?

>>16932654
>perception gives objects existance which in turn gives existance to perceptions
Seeing as it's circular you might as well repeat yourself indefinitely.

You're on point on nothingness. Not bullseye, but close enough.

Also, nothingness ain't that hard to explain without metaphors. It's a point of origin. A sum of all things. It's simple, really.

>everything you wrote w/r/t ego
Shig.

>>16932672
>A tree falling in the forest falls regardless of observers.

how does it sound? how do you know? have you ever heard a tree falling when you werent hearing it?

>You can't have both, buddy. On a purely physical level, our perception and bodies are nothing more than complex physical, natural processes. Their interactions and inter-relations have nothing to do with perception.

well we have both, because neither is autogenic...

>Then essence doesn't exist in the first place. It's only conceptual. Which means it exists only insofar as it influences the actions of those who understand the concepts; whether that's in a beneficial direction or not is irrelevant.

yes it is only conceptual, because there is no thing that can have essence as nothing is independent truly.

the isn’t autogenic, so it has no self-nature but only nature that comes apparent in contrast, it is empty, therefore the ego is as pointless to cling onto as anything else. The ego is by definition something you cling on to. its yours, your very own. but if it lacks that very self arising nature, self arising characteristics and is empty of any essence and you stop clinging to it, because its like trying to grab air, it automatically isn’t an ego.

which logically concludes that the ego isnt a thing.

>Thoughts on mind being divorced from matter?

go hand in hand, inseperable.

>>16932680
nothingness is conceptual though. technically nothingness also cant be self arisen, so it is as empty of essence as the ego, or anything else for that matter

>>16932672
>A tree falling in the forest falls regardless of observers.

But the tree falling has no meaning if there's no witness, it's nothing more than a change in state of presentation to the next observer. To put it simply, why would it matter if it falls if it's not observable?

>>16932706
> technically nothingness also cant be self arisen

I never stated it is. As I said, it's a point of origin. It's neutral. A gray maybe. A platform for everything else to stand from. Think nothingness as the undivided dream, and things as subgradients.

Furthermore, the ego is essential to experience and in turn, are the objects we percieve. Literally essential.

>>16932694
>how does it sound?

Like a tree falling.

>how do you know?

Because we have evidence of trees falling.

>have you ever heard a tree falling when you werent hearing it?

That's impossible.

>well we have both, because neither is autogenic...
We have both, but not because neither is autogenic. We have both because that's how Nature works.

Trying to water down basic physics into "because it's not autogenic" doesn't work.

>it has no self-nature but only nature that comes apparent in contrast

There you go. Now I get what you mean. Contrast is what stimulates the senses. Perception exists regardless, however homogeneity of stimulus doesn't register, as they adapt to the present conditions.

>therefore the ego is as pointless to cling onto as anything else

I agree overall, even though the statement doesn't follow as a consequence of the immediately previous considerations.

>The ego is by definition something you cling on to. its yours, your very own.

Wrong. It's "you". Things you own aren't you. That's the nature of the concept of ego.

>but if it lacks that very self arising nature, self arising characteristics and is empty of any essence and you stop clinging to it, because its like trying to grab air, it automatically isn’t an ego.

...you make no sense, man.
>it is ego
>it lacks qualities X, Y, Z
>you stop clinging to it because it's pointless
>it is not ego

You don't seem to understand what the ego is.

>which logically concludes that the ego isnt a thing.
That was never in dispute. The ego is a phenomenon.
Also a mental construct which makes life much easier.

>>16932758
>To put it simply, why would it matter if it falls if it's not observable?
It wouldn't. Just like it wouldn't matter if it falls if it's observed at the time. It's just another thing happening. Now, if you're a lumberjack and you're in it for the wood, of course it matters. Or if you're driving down a road and it falls and stops you in your way. But otherwise? Naw.

So say I start out with IIH or liber null or whatever.
Those books take years to complete , don't they?
So what do I do in the mean time?
Or do I just stock with one book every few years?

>>16932773
>Just like it wouldn't matter if it falls if it's observed at the time.
But it does matter. Even if only by the fact that it leaves an impression, no matter how small. Something being consciously perceived, regardless of how, gives it meaning in some sense.

>>16932773
This argument is pointless, you go ad nauseum whoch makes me need to repeat myself woththe same arguments. And we both ad nauseum.

Gnight.

>>16932773
in quantum physics the tree didn't fall or make sounds until you observed it. therefore buddhism is real. qed.

>>16932799
>Even if only by the fact that it leaves an impression, no matter how small.

Sure. But that's irrelevant to whether there's conscious perception there or not, since the impression is physical, in the end.

>Something being consciously perceived, regardless of how, gives it meaning in some sense.

Well, that's going back to the issue numero uno: consciousness is inherently relying on the self, the ego.

Secondly, what is meaning? This goes back into philosophy and all that stuff.

>>16932859
Except the tree doesn't exist on the quantum level.

>>16932862
>Sure. But that's irrelevant to whether there's conscious perception there or not, since the impression is physical, in the end.

Conscious perception is relevant in the sense that nothing can be extrapolated from an event unless there is a conscious observer. The observer functions as a carrier of understanding and expression to make the event an event as such. Without the observer there's really nothing to say about it.

>Well, that's going back to the issue numero uno: consciousness is inherently relying on the self, the ego.

Mate, I only just now joined the argument. I agree with you on a lot of points when it comes to the ego (as I happen to be a voluntary egoist). What differentiates our views is your naturalism contra my egoism.

>Secondly, what is meaning? This goes back into philosophy and all that stuff.
Meaning is what is made of a thing. How it is understood and what importance it holds. I don't think I should have to explain why it is important that words and events have meanings. (Even if it's mostly because I think it is something that cannot be done justice with words. I.e. it should be intuitive or experienced.)

>>16932862
> Except the tree doesn't exist on the quantum level.
which means that in a more fundamental level buddhism is real }:)

>magic is real
>that's why I spent the last 18 waking hours arguing freshman pseudophilosophy on the most retarded board on 4chan

This does not add up.

>>16931900
In computer terms he difference is that Liber O, &c is like using a high level programming language that has to be compiled whereas what Bardon teaches is more like writing code in assembly. You develop more direct control of the elemental forces by your own authority rather than by a mediating authority such as the pentagram. The techniques Bardon describes, especially in KTQ, are what ultimately underlie and give power to the more complex ritual technology.

>>16933036
Why not?

>>16933067

It's also bizarre how he can't recognize and obvious science metaphore, but doesn't give any other singular author shit about "THEY LITETALLY THINK DIRT IS THE EARTH ELEMENT!"

The similarities between the connected duality/unity between electric and magnetic fields is immediately intuitively obvious to anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of physics... but apparently because its not inherently based in outdated Jewish superstition, its entirely invalid.

>>16932773
>>16932694


You're both retarded. This is jingoistic mud slinging neither one of you has any real understanding of what you are talking about.

>Buddhist Bro
You're just slinging words around, you don't know what they mean, which is why you're resorting to metaphor, and huge leaps in logic. You only think what you're talking about is indescribable because you can't actually think for yourself what you are trying to describe.

>Surgo
You should know better than to argue that something is not a thing. For that matter, stop using the word thing. Thing refers to an indefinite object of an intending consciousness, the only time it isn't sloppy is when it refers to something like soul. Also, "essence" made the whole discussion vague and non-productive. It usually refers to the soul as well, but the word itself simply has two different meanings.

>>16933067
I really don't understand the bardon love.

Seeing as how there is currently a clash of some sort, I'd like to chime in with a question not involving. I've read, I've lurked, I've asked and I continue to have this absolute and immense battle of spiritual morality waging.

Going from a baptized Catholic that believed ever so much into the dogma I was given up to 2 years ago finding these threads and reading like mad. I feel a shift and a paradigm that is ready to shatter. I find myself going in circles. Satan, bringer of Light, the true heir? The Almighty the imposter? Finding what lineage of Thelema is most accurate, petrified of actually beginning practices due to a psychological disorder I brought upon myself through incessant drug use and perhaps it being exploited in rituals and magick.

I suppose all in all, I am looking for a connection of similar struggles and perhaps a mentor of sorts. I feel starting off on the wrong foot in this area of life can be critical.

/Lifestory

>>16932902
>in the sense that nothing can be extrapolated from an event unless there is a conscious observer

You mean "unless information is derived or abstracted from it". Which can also be done without an event occurring, by referring to past knowledge.

>The observer functions as a carrier of understanding and expression to make the event an event as such.

Nope. You don't need to understand that an event is an event for it to be so.

>How it is understood and what importance it holds.

Yes. But add "to the particular observer".

>I don't think I should have to explain why it is important that words and events have meanings.

No, you don't have to; it comes down to the ego.

>>16932918
But not on our level of existence. Which means it's only useful if your body is super-tiny.

>>16933067
>>In computer terms he difference is that Liber O, &c is like using a high level programming language that has to be compiled whereas what Bardon teaches is more like writing code in assembly.

Fair enough. Now the question is... why is it more useful to write code in assemby, and why would *anyone* want to start there without first learning C or ADA (low-level languages)?

>You develop more direct control of the elemental forces by your own authority rather than by a mediating authority such as the pentagram.

The idea that man has any authority is folly. Any power we have, we derive from God, by Providence.

>The techniques Bardon describes, especially in KTQ, are what ultimately underlie and give power to the more complex ritual technology.

KTQ is a watered down Sepher Yetzirah though. Not even kidding.

>>16933223
>doesn't give any other singular author shit
I do. Just none of those authors ever get mentioned here (mostly Eastern Europeans who write "intro to magic 101 tutorial guide for noobs").

>because its not inherently based in outdated Jewish superstition
But it is. You can't divorce Bardon from hardcore Jew Magic.

>>16934543
It's because they haven't read anything else.

>>16934818
>petrified of actually beginning practices due to a psychological disorder I brought upon myself through incessant drug use

Don't start practice. Instead, begin with autogenic training, and read A LOT into self-hypnosis. These are simple, safe ways of getting yourself back on your feet. They'll boost your neuroplasticity, so your "disorder" should move out of your quite quickly.

Here's my life story:
http://z.lvxnox.com/z/contact

Haven't updated it in a long, long, long time, but hey, it's something.

>>16934818
What is your psychological disorder? If you're talking anxiety or something else mood related, you'll more than likely be fine, so long as you stay aware of it. If you're having trouble staying connected to reality, it is going to completely divorce you from it.

Losing touch with reality and the truth is part of the process, due to extreme psychological distress and the lure of how things are presented.

>Going from a baptized Catholic that believed ever so much into the dogma I was given up to 2 years ago finding these threads and reading like mad. I feel a shift and a paradigm that is ready to shatter.

I wouldn't be so quick to give up on your religion, particularly Catholicism. Some of the dogma is meant for people who are literally never going to think about things for themselves, and need general rules to follow for their own sake. The problem with Dogma is that it usually contains a higher level truth that isn't easily grasped,and thus has to be formalized and protected, so you have to go through a period of abandoning this lower level meaning, and trying to understand it for the truth it contains.

> I find myself going in circles. Satan, bringer of Light, the true heir? The Almighty the imposter?

Ask yourself, does this actually make sense to you? Or is it simply the question it raises what bothers you? A lot of questions are asserted through statements not asked. Before the fall, The Old Testament "Lord" and Satan basically work in Tandem, you have YHWH, who passively builds you up, provides,and watches, then you have the other Angels who carry out his will, among them Satan who actively takes away,testing your character, and judges. This is all according to YHWH's will. After the fall, Satan is basically just unrestrained, he tests and tempts without purpose.

>>16934902
Autogenic training? Self-generation isn't something you train, it is something you break loose in journeying towards the center of the earth. Trust me, if it was something you could just practice, the journey would be a lot less risky. As it stands, a lot of people use up what they have and get trapped in the Abyss.

>>16934896
>why would *anyone* want to start there without first learning C or ADA (low-level languages)?

I am not saying that starting with Bardon is for the best, only that his books provide relevant information that is not readily available else where in as straight forward a form.

Any power we have, we derive from God, but not by Providence. Rather, by the actual identification with God by acting Creatively.

>>16934818
saturn has been transiting scorpio

>>16934818
As a Catholic, former or what have you, you may be familiar with the Book of Acts and Simon Magnus the father of Gnosticism and kingpin of playing church politics for money, you want to shake a bit of paradigms check out the spiritual belief of the Gnostics and the history of the church burning their books from existence

>>16934902
Thank you, I've been looking for exactly that.

>>16934919
I have severe depersonalization-derealization. In layman's terms, all my senses most notably my sense of self is from a third person perspective. I am fully aware at all times that "I" am not fully in control. Again, layman's terms, hold your hand out. You fully encompass and feel that hand, it is you, it belongs to you. For me, it's a foreign object, strange to me. Lots of psychedelics, bad anxiety, bad trips and a few ego death trips later with a near death vision from an other wordly being got me here. For the latter part of your reply, that makes sense. Didn't objectify it that way, more so saw it as two dimensional.

>>16934934
A large issue I have is such abyss, crossing it. I suppose there's really nothing more to add onto its already do-or-die persona.

Anyway, thanks all for the response. I'll check back later but after a third shift schedule, rainy day and a phone that's on 2%, I can't indulge until later. Cheers.

>>16934939
>his books provide relevant information that is not readily available else where in as straight forward a form.

I would tend to disagree. As mentioned, Sepher Yetzirah, for starters.

Secondly, Bardon uses a very abstractive (high level) approach, given the separation between bodies he gives. Hardly low-level work there.

>>16934934
>Autogenic training?

Yes, autogenic training.

>Self-generation isn't something you train, it is something you break loose in journeying towards the center of the earth. Trust me, if it was something you could just practice, the journey would be a lot less risky. As it stands, a lot of people use up what they have and get trapped in the Abyss.

You're an idiot. How can you not know about the most basic of practices?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogenic_training

It's similar to the Betty Erickson induction for self-hypnosis, for those interested.

>>16935002
The "Abyss" is the amnesic barrier between consciousness and automatisms.
You "cross" it by becoming more self-aware. That's basically how one purifies the Stone.

File: Ariadne the Weaver.jpg (482KB, 741x1027px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 741x1027px

>>16933036
LEmme clarify for you
>I've done magic that is bigger than me
>I can sustain caring for 18 hours about someone who is combative to what I understand
>This does not add up.

>>16934818
Satan is the father and bringer of lies and fleeting suffering. The almight is the creator and everlasting and bringer of everlasting bliss.

>>16935078
Devils advocate; every culture has had in their stories of gods and deities a Promethian character, someone who cares for humanity so much so that they bring knowledge, fire, some essence of survival or frustration to man and is then punished for it. In the Book of Enoch it is even the angel Lucifer, the leader of the Heavenly Choir, who's name is the Morning Star, came before men to teach us of science, beauty, art, and the continuation and advancement of the species. If any belief in the Monomyth is to be considered from that then one would be lead to a logical conclusion that Satan ain't so bad a dude.

>>16935070
The Sepher Yetzirah gives you correspondences but doesn't describe what to do with them or how they are used. There are some better sources for the practice of letter-magic relating to Runic but none that are so widely known or straight forward as Bardon's book.

>>16935148
>doesn't describe what to do with them or how they are used
Yes, yes it does.

>none that are so widely known or straight forward as Bardon's book
It's amusing that you think so.
What is Crowley's Magick in Theory and Practice?
What is Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy?
What are the Keys of Solomon?
What is Japa Yoga?
What is the Oratory Art that Al-Kindi speaks of?

Seriously. It's readily apparent that you haven't read anything beyond Bardon. You're welcome to show me that I'm wrong, however I really doubt you're able to.

>>16935070
>How can you not know about the most basic of practices?

I did not realize there was a name for it. Until now, it was just another part of self-mastery. Interestingly enough, the non-psychologized form I am familiar with skips the ritual entirely, more of a retreat inward, and has a whole higher level of functions ascribed to it.

>The "Abyss" is the amnesic barrier between consciousness and automatisms...That's basically how one purifies the Stone.

Yes...and No. You think this is end because of your reluctance to embrace the soul. The white queen will be most displeased with you.

File: Kali_by_Raja_Ravi_Varma.jpg (86KB, 394x549px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 394x549px

>>16935183
>a whole higher level of functions ascribed to it.

Lower level. Less abstract, more actual. Closer to the neurological layers of being.

>You think this is end because of your reluctance to embrace the soul.

The soul is the sum total of ones experiences and memory. Cf. Ficino, Bruno.

>The white queen will be most displeased with you.

kek
pic related

>Nsumarl terrible

>>16935095
Who's advocate? That's your stance? Literally advocating for the DEVIL?

Those things are unworthy.

>>16935195
>Lower level. Less abstract, more actual. Closer to the neurological layers of being.

All levels, abstract and concrete, more accurate and versatile. Closer to all modes of being.

>The soul is the sum total of ones experiences and memory

"The soul exists partly in eternity and partly in time."

Soul, here is Psyche, the human level. Is he referring to the One, or an individual? it is an undifferentiated mess. He was working from a limited pool of textual resources.

>>16935229
>All levels, abstract and concrete, more accurate and versatile. Closer to all modes of being.

Elaborate. What do you have to support that there are "modes" of being in the first place?

>>16935229
>Soul, here is Psyche, the human level.

Where are you getting this from?

>Is he referring to the One, or an individual? it is an undifferentiated mess.

Only because you haven't read the books. Sit down and read. It's not long.

>He was working from a limited pool of textual resources.

They. Both Ficino and Bruno were hella educated men.

>>16935251
>Elaborate. What do you have to support that there are "modes" of being in the first place?

"Modes", I think, is the wrong word. I was trying to avoid using "layers". What I'm looking for is a simple way of saying ontological difference.

>Where are you getting this from?
Ancient Greece. Aristotle's On the Soul is probably a good place to start.

>Only because you haven't read the books.
Want to bet? Remember, this is my area of expertise. I was trying to be subtle. Ficino was the reintroduction of Parmenides. You know, Being, The One

>They. Both Ficino and Bruno were hella educated men.

They're a whole generation apart. Ficino retreads old ground, he has all the deformations of the Neoplatonists and the stoics. Cardona fixes some of it. Then Sanchez' Quod Nihil Acitur gets everything back to Plato, and you should read it if you haven't. . Bruno's the next one in line and he was the first time the bar had actually moved forward under the Church.

>>16935293
>Remember, this is my area of expertise.

Forgot I was Anon, not sure how I expected you to know that.

Will magic help someone manipulate people and circumstances around them the way they want rather than let things be as they are?

>>16935293
>What I'm looking for is a simple way of saying ontological difference.

Which means what, exactly, in the context of things existing?

>Aristotle's On the Soul is probably a good place to start.

Aristotle, overall, if full of shit; I'd be much more willing to accept a notion of the soul which isn't supernatural.

>Bruno's the next one in line and he was the first time the bar had actually moved forward under the Church.

I'm not actually certain of that. But you're probably right.

>>16935310
Yes, in the extent they take proper action.

File: tumblr_nw55c6NGHv1tjmcvmo2_1280.jpg (36KB, 600x452px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x452px

>>16935310
Yes. It will give you bad karma and you'll go to hell. Even planning to do that will do that.

>>16935468
Proper action or "improper" action (;

>>16927897
HOW DO I CONTRIBUTE
hoping you reply this time

>>16935489
Pick a topic you know a reasonable amount about, do a write up explaining it, and host the thread, sharing what information you can.

>>16935169
>What is Crowley's Magick in Theory and Practice?
>What is Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy?
Neither of these are in the least bit straightforward, and the second one is filled with baseless, primitive guesswork.

>>16935557
>Neither of these are in the least bit straightforward, and the second one is filled with baseless, primitive guesswork.
kek'd
Agrippa is far from guesswork; it's simply a clusterfuck of all the information that Cornelius collected in his journeys.

As for Crowley, it is indeed very much straightforward; you just have to actually read the text and have the least shred of intelligence.

>>16935489
Say something. If you know something or want to know something there is a thread here for us.

>>16935169
>Crowley's Magick in Theory and Practice
Not practical instruction if you are not already a ceremonial magician. Chapters are inconsistent and needlessly obscure. It is also overly particular to the Golden Dawn style practices, although it is not wholly without value

>What is Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy?
Very useful, but written in an older way that is more difficult to follow. It also doesn't contain any practical exercises.

>What are the Keys of Solomon?
Mather's and Crowley's edition is missing the key.
What is the Heptameron?

Of the others I know but a little but I can learn what ever I need to from the spirits themselves. In any case, my opinion or knowledge of other things has little bearing on the quality of Bardon's writings. His book is obviously inferior to having an personal initiator.

Change your opinion on Bardon. You're wrong.

>>16935567
>"""information"""
It's literally superstition.
I don't see why people still recommend such outdated rubbish.

>>16935672
>It's literally superstition.
A large part of it, yes. Easily filtered out though.

>I don't see why people still recommend such outdated rubbish.
Because it's fundamental in understanding "modern" rubbish.

If you don't know the roots and thought processes that brought us to this point, how do you keep from reinventing the wheel?

Also, I just skimmed through Agrippa again. Lots of practices to perform.

>>16935684
>If you don't know the roots and thought processes that brought us to this point, how do you keep from reinventing the wheel?

Easy.

By skipping the superstitious ramblings of primitive dead people, and approaching the subject matter from a fresh perspective, taking all the advances we've made in the sciences into account as we do so.

I'm not going to waste my time learning whatever silly songs and dances shamans did to "heal" people when I'm studying to be an endocrinologist, and I'm not going to waste time on such idiocy when dealing with metaphysics.

>>16935701
Well, okay. So what do you propose is the Truth?
What do you suppose is possible?
How do you suppose it can be made to happen?

>>16935730

I would start by asking questions that aren't so vague to the point of being meaningless.

"Satan is a Fascist"

>>16935701
okay, full stop. you're anti superstition and you're pushing bardon?

>>16927897
Huh weird stuff, but not real

>>16936129
Yes. Why?

>>16936270
Because bardon's work was full of superstitions, about half of them he made up himself. Not sure if you ever read his autobiography, but he was either roleplaying or mad.

>>16935468
>Aristotle, overall, is full of shit; I'd be much more willing to accept a notion of the soul which isn't supernatural.

The Platonic, which Aristotle, belongs to, all work under the basic assumption that the metaphysical is a defective stage in the process which is to be overcome.

Everything has soul, and common faculties which can be ascribed to it. Which Is why I can speak of Nous as the human soul, or self-generation and growth as the vegetative soul. The vegetable soul, doesn't have Nous, but a human does have self-generation and growth, so in this way you can say that human soul is composed of both Human and Vegetative soul as it has the common faculties attributed to it.

>I'm not actually certain of that. But you're probably right

You're right to question it, I'm not sure the bar ever really gets raised. However, he does refornulate the ancient cosmological stage,by synthesizing it with Christian concepts like imago Dei.

File: quote-let-go-of-what-has-passed-let-go-of-what-may-come-let-go-of-what-is-happening-now-don-tilopa-54-23-53.jpg (62KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 850x400px

>>16932131
>Or I just have a proper vocabulary, and use dictionaries a lot.

Well, look, I'm a writer and I had some experiences, and I can say, from personal experience, that there's absolutely no way to adequately transmit what you have experienced to words. You can write it down and rewrite it hundred of times, and it still will suck, no matter how advanced your vocabulary and writing skills are.
And to say that writing "I experienced a state in which everything felt absolutely right and perfect in the Universe, down to the little blade of grass on the lawn," or "I felt liquid fire moving up my spine" is the same as experiencing them is confusing the menu with the meal and could lead to mistakes in interpretation.
For example, you can say "Everything is emptiness" and a casual person with no direct experience of emptiness would think that Mahayana Buddhism is nihilistic.

>Yeah. Interestingly, if you look at the language patterns involved, you will notice that all of those things are highly permeated with hypnotic elements.

What hypnotic elements can be in sitting in front of a teacher? Looking at a flower handed to you by your teacher? Getting slapped by a sandal?

>If you don't conceptualize everything, how can you claim to be able to transmit and communicate your knowledge?

Do you need to communicate verbally your knowledge about how much you love your girlfriend every time you meet her? A smile can say more than thousand of words. It may sound cheesy, but it's true.

>>16936403
>>What hypnotic elements can be in sitting in front of a teacher? Looking at a flower handed to you by your teacher? Getting slapped by a sandal?

Yes, that is more than a bit hypnotic. In fact, if you leave a person who's fully awake and aware with a person who's in deep trance for 5-10 minutes, they'll be pulled into trance as well. Guess what; most of the contemplations at work induce trance.

>Do you need to communicate verbally your knowledge about how much you love your girlfriend every time you meet her?

Yes actually. But then I'm that kind of guy.

>A smile can say more than thousand of words. It may sound cheesy, but it's true.

Or it might not say enough. Tone, rhythm of speech, attitude, these things communicate more than a smile does.

>>16936403
>Well, look, I'm a writer and I had some experiences, and I can say, from personal experience, that there's absolutely no way to adequately transmit what you have experienced to words.

I have some bad news, this is a personal deficiency. Part of good writing is finding the right word and grammar to effectively communicate your experience. It is difficult, but not impossible.

>Do you need to communicate verbally your knowledge about how much you love your girlfriend every time you meet her? A smile can say more than thousand of words. It may sound cheesy, but it's true.

This is clearest sign of your linguistic deficiency. Think about how love is prepositionally expressed, we fall IN love, are inescapably surrounded by it. To speak of "how much" you love someone is to not understand the experience.

>>16936421
>Yes, that is more than a bit hypnotic. In fact, if you leave a person who's fully awake and aware with a person who's in deep trance for 5-10 minutes, they'll be pulled into trance as well. Guess what; most of the contemplations at work induce trance

All the teacher's I've met didn't look like they were in deep trance at the time. They didn't look detached or distant at all; in fact, they were more alert than the others in the room.

File: Rumi-3.jpg (45KB, 420x410px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 420x410px

>>16936421

>Or it might not say enough. Tone, rhythm of speech, attitude, these things communicate more than a smile does.

Neurotypical people can get it. A girl may give the impression that she's interested and nice by her intonation and attitude, but every single person who isn't an autist, clinically speaking, can see by her body language that in fact she's annoyed with you. You can discover more about the person by body language alone than words. As a hypnotist and a psychologist, you should know about this.

>I have some bad news, this is a personal deficiency. Part of good writing is finding the right word and grammar to effectively communicate your experience. It is difficult, but not impossible.

Tell that to all the other mystics who had lived and tried to describe what they felt through words. Every single person who really got what occultism is about will disagree with the fact that things can be described properly.
Have you, by chance, read the Book of Lies?

>>16936445
>This is clearest sign of your linguistic deficiency. Think about how love is prepositionally expressed, we fall IN love, are inescapably surrounded by it. To speak of "how much" you love someone is to not understand the experience.

"Do you need to communicate verbally your knowledge about how strongly you feel in love with your girlfriend every time you meet her" sounds clunkier. And people in real life don't say "How much I fell in love with you" but "I love you so much."

>>16936565
>"Do you need to communicate verbally your knowledge about how strongly you feel in love with your girlfriend every time you meet her" sounds clunkier. And people in real life don't say "How much I fell in love with you" but "I love you so much."

Again, quality and quantity do not apply to the experience. The misguided way of thinking about love which underlies expressions of this type is how you get nonsensical phrases like " I love you, but I am not in love with you".

You disconnect from the experience when you try to measure it. The heart simply wants what it wants, love is simply love.

>>16932099
> tl;dr i disagree with you because you say i'm a mentally ill tranny

truth hurts.

>>16936334
It's actually the single most secular book on the topic, provided you can understand that "electromagnetism" is a replacement for "ying/yang".

>>16936784
>"electromagnetism" is a replacement for "ying/yang".
I.e. superstitious bullshit.

I'm not sure if I should ask this here or /div/ but if anyone knows: what's a good method for communicating with the dead, aside from ouija boards?

>>16936811
If you're going to claim that, then I hope you're willing to discount every single aspect of occultism that involves planetary metaphors as well as elemental ones.

>>16937104
Oh, I absolutely am. Can't discount the physical effects, though.
And that's all we're talking about. Nature. Physics.

>>16937111
If that were the case, you would not be recommending Crowley, Agrippa, GD, etc.

>>16937111
You shouldn't be. Don't let Bardon's incompetence ruin the relationship between the lower physical world, and the higher spiritual one, for you.

I'll explain to you the nature between Physics and metaphysics next time you're on the irc.

>>16937123

This, to be honest, my family.

The true adept gay rapes his followers in the desert while pretending to be Pan.

>>16937111
I'm not sure why you post in these threads if you don't actually believe in magic. All I ever see you post is PUA-tier pop psychology.

>>16936784
it's not even pretending. dion fortune, robert anton wilson, some of regardie's introductory books, libraries of chaos magic authors and discordian authors, have provided far more dogma free books

anybody here know of necromancy?

>>16937593
Discordian is a meme religion. Basically the Anonymous of the 1960's.

>>16937635
All religions are memes. Do you want a medal for pointing that out?

File: fedora thief.png (805B, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

805B, 320x320px

>>16937687
>All religions are memes

>>16937788
>implying buddha or christ or aiwass was real

We all ready for the Malebolge?

>>16937572
Like what?

>>16937788
What is emotional contagion?

>>16937687 All religions are memeplexes.

Anybody know or have some suggestion about which can be the "word of the Neophyte" in the A.A. system?

>>16937609
I know of necromancy

>>16938679
>>16938679
Not that anon, but communicating with those already dead is within the scope of necromancy, right? If so, what's a good way to do it aside from ouija boards?
Sorry, admittedly still a noob about all this, but I'm looking to ask some dead people a few things and just pass on messages and stuff.

File: victorian tears.png (494KB, 451x640px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 451x640px

Is there any specific Magick that I should be looking into for things like manipulation, power, money, etc? Perhaps more...questionable Magick?

Also maybe something that would convert a skeptic?

File: 51t5HZ2826L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (17KB, 228x346px)

17KB, 228x346px

>>16927897
Please include Rhetorica ad Herennium.

"There were no other survivors. Family members arriving at the scene of the fifth-century-B.C. banquet hall catastrophe pawed at the debris for signs of their loved ones—rings, sandals, anything that would allow them to identify their kin for proper burial.
Minutes earlier, the Greek poet Simonides of Ceos had stood to deliver an ode in celebration of Scopas, a Thessalian nobleman. As Simonides sat down, a messenger tapped him on the shoulder. Two young men on horseback were waiting outside, anxious to tell him something. He stood up again and walked out the door. At the very moment he crossed the threshold, the roof of the banquet hall collapsed in a thundering plume of marble shards and dust. He stood now before a landscape of rubble and entombed bodies. The air, which had been filled with boisterous laughter moments before, was smoky and silent. Teams of rescuers set to work frantically digging through the collapsed building. The corpses they pulled out of the wreckage were mangled beyond recognition. No one could even say for sure who had been inside. One tragedy compounded another.
>cont.

File: bk_55_rhetorica_title.jpg (388KB, 1500x1235px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1500x1235px

>>16939062

Then something remarkable happened that would change forever how people thought about their memories. Simonides sealed his senses to the chaos around him and reversed time in his mind. The piles of marble returned to pillars and the scattered frieze fragments reassembled in the air above. The stoneware scattered in the debris re-formed into bowls. The splinters of wood poking above the ruins once again became a table. Simonides caught a glimpse of each of the banquet guests at his seat, carrying on oblivious to the impending catastrophe. He saw Scopas laughing at the head of the table, a fellow poet sitting across from him sponging up the remnants
of his meal with a piece of bread, a nobleman smirking. He turned to the window and saw the messengers approaching, as if with some important news.
Simonides opened his eyes. He took each of the hysterical relatives by the hand and, carefully stepping over the debris, guided them, one by one, to the spots in the rubble where their loved ones had been sitting.
At that moment, according to legend, the art of memory was born".

Ars Memoriae deserves to be taught.

>>16938752
The best way is with clairaudience and clairvoyance and clairsentience. Honestly its what I use. Failing that contacting the dead is indeed dangerous because you can be lied to.

Look up ouija board etiquette and you should be fine. Don't say thank you. Or you're welcome. Any spirit that is slighted by that is NOT worth knowing. Be grateful and acknowledge gratitude.