The magick of summoning

Post Reply New Topic

I've been reading along the occult tract for a while and am finally coming up on the point where its time to read, listen to, and see what's been happening with regard to people who've been using ceremonial magick to summon things.

There's a whole community out there that still does it and not surprisingly it's not always demons - apparently the seven archangels of the Ptolemaic planets can be thrown into that measure, the kings and queens of the elemental realms (earth, fire, water, and air), and being it's a community that seems to be writing books essentially for each other and they seem to have a fair amount of agreement on the terms of how these things happen. Similarly most use the information that they find these beings providing to work on themselves, improve, fix problems, and essentially find ways to get 'closer to God' in the Great Work sense.

Seems a lot of this falls under something a bit like applied mysticism, they'd refer to people doing right-hand-path magick as 'magicians' through rather than mystics which they tend to see as a more passive kind of role. The specific flavor of what happens with them however fits in pretty well with a few of the experiences I've had - ie. occasionally the 'supernatural' (for as worthless as that terminology is) wells up in ways so loud and clear that you can tell it's not your standard conscious imagination. I haven't however had the fortune of getting that on call, developing astral vision, etc. which is something I'm very interested in just because to me it would be like acquiring another language. This stuff is fascinating though technically without regard to whether it's externally real or whether it's the practictioner playing their own brain like an instrument - seems like the later even says a lot about many groups of people who've hacked the brain way better than the world of psychology and psychiatry is willing to admit. I've run into plenty of atheists even who caught on to the sense that there's something very worthwhile to the kinds of effects that can be yielded when a person works on their own subconscious.

I know there's a lot of people here who go to bed with a Richard Dawkins teddy-bear and keep a Sam Harris night-light on for good measure but what the heck, sometimes it's fun to throw a wrench in the gears or blow some of the monotony off of the room.

My own verdict on this stuff so far - there's a lot more to what we think is 'physical' than we realize and we could perhaps consider all those implications of intelligence in what we think of being noncorporeal places as manifesting themselves pretty much as such (ie. undines, silphs, salamanders, and gnomes seem like a natural consequence of such consciousness interlaced through matter and natural processes). It seems like such superintelligences as the gods, goddesses, archangels, and elemental kings and queens behave in a similar manner - ie. they're a bit like floating pools of data, knowledge, and traits, things that people contact - both knowingly and unknowingly - by thinking like they do. If a person talks to a medium and finds out from them that they have a handful of ascended masters, gods, or goddesses working with them, in so many ways it seems like it would just mean that like is drawing like and the ways in which that person resonates is finding the bends in the road that draw those traits along farther. It's a bit like thinking of deities as polarities of consciousness, example being that if the universe had 1,024 colors of consciousness each deity would be one of those colors in its relative non-primary purity.

Regardless of whether I'll find that hypothesis holds or not it seems like the universe is a very drippy and molten place when it comes to boundaries the way we like to think of them. Makes the research and reading all the more interesting.

I wonder if Melvil Dewey would have classified this under section 201, 203, 813 or 817 ...

Alcoholics sometimes claim to see the pink elephant deity.

Cant you summon something to change the attitude of the piss-takers and bullies on this Forum who cannot abide anyone having a World View different from theirs and so have to attack and belittle them?

^^

I kinda understand their sensitivity though. If one thing, just one thing, is out of order with respect to the boundaries of consciousness and the human body or the effects of mind and will being anything beyond an epiphenomena of matter they have to go all the way back to the drawing board. They also wonder I suppose, with what they would find if it were overturned, whether they'd be forced to see so many choices they made as 'sins' even without their knowing and hung out to dry by a popular rendition of the Abrahamic sky-god of organized religion (and most of us know - atheist or spiritual-but-not-religious - to jump into organized religion quite often means a life fully turned outward and where all progress is a cul-de-sac or cyclical loop of finding a oak seat and a collection basket in front of you, Christians who do better than that usually do so on their own or even go a bit heterodox in making it happen). The global consciousness project is already one of those things that's a foreshadow to a much greater tipping point in 'evidence' and for as much as the world has wanted to scream blasphemy or heresy at the P.E.A.R researchers it's on the same length of topic.

Really I think so much of the anger out there is 'If there is a Dad, why did he abandon us and why did he leave us backed into a corner to be forced to make absolutely terrible choices such as war, eugenics, etc. when all we wanted was him but couldn't find any shred of credible evidence that he was there?'. I still don't fully understand the answer to that question, seems like the heavy-hand of organized religion combined with the heavy hand of 18th century atheism and the run toward the refuge in science as more than just a method but a hope for what was believed to be salvation from human barbarism (a myth then stripped from secular/enlightened society in the 20th century) - all of that sort of put us where we are now and with so many tautological beliefs such as the dogma of science swearing all things are of material origin and then so many priests and pastors acting as if God is so distant and something so exalted that you have to be one of a handful of saints throughout history to have any sort of valid higher experience. Really we've been between the bumpers for several centuries and we've been culturally reverberating in that cage.

I was agnostic-pushing-atheist for quite a while but I was never able to devote enough pride to it to have some corner of myself or personal value that needed to be defended - guess I felt that no matter how much I knew I didn't know it all.

All the same I think I should keep posting things like this once in a while just because it seems like no one else has the courage to do it anymore and the forum is just looking horribly...banal.

Don't their brains essentially convert alcohol to a laudanum of sorts? Opiates have been known to cause enthogenic effects in certain combinations, just that I have doubts on the spiritual/religious value of the elephant experience unless encountering them leads to a revelation that they need to go to A.A.

Simple answer is God didnt abandon us, we abandoned God, we chose to come under the jurisdiction of the Devil so that we could be free of Gods constrains and allowed the Devil to steal Gods creation for himself.

Re the second comment of yours I quoted, good for you.

If we made any such choice it had to have been subconsciously and not within our will or sphere of knowledge to put it that way or know that's what it meant. It takes a rare breed of person to say they want to go the path of the devil and damnation. Even Laveyan Satanists only choose that monicker because they believe in neither a devil nor hell (or apparently any life hereafter for that matter), I'm not sure how they figure on magick working beyond simply transformation of their own neurological structure but they seem to. I think the overall picture - few if any want to go the 'dark' way, lots of people can judge others based on their own understanding falling short of research while others are pulled further out to the sides trying to compare as many stories, facts, figures, etc. as they possibly can.

The other half of that - when one looks at the history of the Roman church from the Constantine to Justinian period through the dark ages and then up through the middle ages it makes it a bit less plausible that the run was to Ha Satan and away from Yahweh - ie. seems like it was closer to a choice between two Ha Satan's, one at least seemed to offer basic liberties (liberties that the U.S. is founded upon as a country). In that sense, the way things were back in the 18th century and previous, the Enlightenment was - at the time - the choice of the lesser of two evils. Religion then also had to have quality of message rather than simply might and reeducation chambers. To read the new testament and look at Christ's words, Paul's words, John's words, etc. - none of what happened with 'Christianity' looks right, the Protestants tried to recapture the bible and live it to the best of their ability without what they believed to be Catholic and paganizing innovations but what they missed is that, at least in my own opinion and from what I can tell, there was more to the story that the Romish church knew but simply wouldn't share.

Really in context it's easy for us to think that there were 'good old days' where things looked far better or where we walked with God, as far as I can tell we haven't done that since Eden (whatever that analogy really stands for or whether or not the apple was really an apple as such) and the times people did come close to really getting it were either in ancient Egypt, classical Greece, and if one is willing to look at the sunken 10,000+ year old temples off the coasts of Japan, Cuba, then places like Gobeckli Tepe, seems like anyone who can claim travel to Atlantis attests that they had science and magick interwoven, had a great thing going but eventually the same kind of proprietary thinking that lead us to have our arms full of nukes caused their own moral destruction among many other things. At the same time if the Egyptians could acknowledge their understandings as part of the Atlantean heritage one could suggest that the Atlanteans for a time 'got it' but then like many cultures, over time Republic thinking became Empire thinking and when the empire comes it's massive cultural 'bubble' that pops and destroys the culture that it was created from. The founding fathers of the U.S. had little optimism for how long the country could last before it's own people would realize that they could raid their own treasury in the way that Rome did....

Meh, sorry if that turned a bit long-winded. I think my initial point was - things seem quite a bit more complex than it simply being a matter of us having chosen Big Red (TM) over God.

^^I think you are a very beautiful writer.

I only wish I was as good a reader.

Interesting. True? Who knows.

On the subject of being sensitive to different worldviews, yeah, I get that. I always thought what does science count for in this situation? If these sorts of things existed, their very existence in itself is a contradiction to our understanding of reality. This would mean one of two things; Either our understanding of reality is wrong, or we have the rules right for us humans, but they don't have to follow them.

I believe in such things. Personal experience and whatnot. Maybe not all of it, but having seen some of it, I'm hardly in a position to rule out the existence of other things my understanding of reality would deem impossible. At the same time though, I have no evidence. I did not come prepared with a camera when such things appeared to me. I cannot impose my worldview on others, I can't expect them to believe on my word alone.

One thing I've always said though, is that you don't always get to decide. The impossible presents itself, whether the observer wants to see or not. The person perfectly comfortable, attached, even, to conventional reality may be surrounded by such events, whilst a life long seeker of the extraordinary may find nothing.

At the end of the day, whenever I turn on a properly-functioning television, it works 100% of the time. Whenever I use prayer, or try to cast magical spells, the success rate seems to be so low as to be indistinguishable from random chance.

So long as that continues to be the case, I really see no reason to ponder magick or any other kind of supernatural force, as it doesn't seem like it'll lead to anything productive. Given my heavily pragmatic mind, that leaves me with little interest.

I didn't know magick had a k on the end.

Oh poor you, all we want is a logical debate framed around sound thinking and the ability to accept what is actually known about the universe and all within it, in particular earth and it's natural events. When people in a debating forum refute knowledge in place of belief, and simply refuse to even investigate the concerns of the majority that much of what they are saying is demonstrably false, then what is left other than to say "you are wrong" or "on this matter you are ignorant or foolish"

To have a different world view is one thing, to base it upon fictitious or false evidence and then bring it to a debating forum and get upset when people call you on false testimony, is something altogether different.

Only when an attempt is made to take magic out of the realm of the illusion. I suppose it's users think it gives the term a sense of mystique and awe.

There is no valid material evidence to support any claim of the alleged reality of any form of magic, sorcery, witchcraft, wizardry, necromancy, enchantment, the paranormal, the supernatural, occultism, the occult, black or white magic, the "black arts", voodoo, hoodoo, mojo, shamanism, charms, curses, hexes, spells, jinxes, psychics or psionics.

'Magic' is merely the mundane art of turning another person's fears, gullibility and superstition into one's own wealth.

I can't remember who started that, might have been Crowley, but it was mostly for ceremonial magicians tired of explaining that they don't pull rabbits out of hats, cut showgirls in wooden boxes, or make doves and cards fly out from under a piece of silk. I almost wish sometimes there was a different spelling of accounting for professionals who aren't in the tax field for similar reasons.