Elements
bb
I don't know what the elements are. Okay, I can name them: Earth, Air, Fire,
Water and Spirt. I can guess they represent something pyscological, that makes
up the human mind, but I don't know what they *are*. This is probably really
basic, but can someone please explain?
--
It's bad luck to be superstitious.
Apotheosis
"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e5uhk...@drn.newsguy.com...
Dion Fortune: the mystical Qabalah or Ram Prasad ;Natures Finer Forces' the
former is really Qabalah, the latter is more 'original source' I have them
both as e-Books if you cant find them, but do try.
A
Brett
>Hey guys,
>
>I don't know what the elements are. Okay, I can name them: Earth, Air, Fire,
>Water and Spirt. I can guess they represent something pyscological, that makes
>up the human mind, but I don't know what they *are*. This is probably really
>basic, but can someone please explain?
Well, on one level, they are:
Earth: Solid
Water: Liquid
Air: Gas
Fire: Plasma
Spirit: Chose your terminology
Five Energy States.
Tom
>
> I don't know what the elements are. Okay, I can name them: Earth, Air,
> Fire,
> Water and Spirt. I can guess they represent something pyscological, that
> makes
> up the human mind, but I don't know what they *are*. This is probably
> really
> basic, but can someone please explain?
Yes, it's basic. That's what an element is. Basic.
An element is a primordial principle, the simplest, most essential thing
possible, from which all other substances are composed.
In different cosmologies, different elements are identified. The Greeks
conceived of the elements of the material world as earth, air, water, and
fire, mostly alluding to the states of matter they observed (solid, liquid,
gaseous, and incandescent) rather than their chemical composition. Plato
said that the elements were represnted by the geometric solids, the
so-called "Platonic Solids". Fire was the tetrahedron, earth was the cube,
air was the octahedron, and water was the icosahedron. There is a fifth
Platonic Solid, the dodecahedron, that represented an essense about which
Plato remarked rather cryptically, "...the god used for arranging the
constellations on the whole heaven". Aristotle called this fifth element
aither, which in English is spelled "ether" and declared that it alone, of
all the elements, was incorruptible.
The Indians identified the three "gunas", fire (agni), earth (prithivi),
water (ap). These gunas were not seen so much as substances but as causal
principles that underlay matter. Another principle that was not quite the
same as a guna was also posited as something that surrounded and enfolded
the gunas and from which they sprang, representing space (akasha). An air
element (vayu) was added later. This fits rather neatly into the same
pattern that the Greeks used.
The Chinese, on the other hand, saw the five elements as wood, fire, earth,
metal, and water. Most Western occultists don't deal with this system much
because it doesn't fold up into the Greek system very easily.
The association of aether/akasha with spirit comes from the notion that the
heavens, where the gods are, is composed of this fifth, incorruptible
element. So it has come to represent the godly and insubstantial component
of living beings, the soul or spirit.
The association of the pentagram with the five elements is a Pythagorean
development.
LuckyH.
As Tom stated earlier,
The 4 elements date back to the Greek Philosophy where everything you
see, touch, taste, in the known universe was believed to be made up of
different combinations of Earth, Air, Fire, or Water.
This belief would later play a role in the formation of Alchemy, since
it's not a long jump to question if the proportion of these elements
could be changed, then one might be able to turn lead into gold......
Later on "Ether" was added (by Plato?), and this may where "Spirit"
derives as Ether was said to be the substance that permeates all
existance.
A lot of this ties into the ancient philosophical debate of "Atoms",
which would later go on to inspire the modern meaning of the word. The
Ancient Greeks realized that if something existed and was "real", then
if you kept dividing it into smaller and smaller pieces, it would never
become something else -which is a paradox since you can't just keep
dividing something smaller and smaller for infinity. To cope with
this paradox the theory of "Atoms" was divised where a basic building
unit was the lowest form of matter that could be achieved, meaning it
couldn't be divided into anything else. That's why Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water are refered to as "Elements", since they were believed to be
the building blocks of matter.
Sidenote: Anybody remember the name of the philosopher who came up
with a really good paradox concerning movement. It goes like this:
You and I stand on opposite ends of a room. I want to walk over to
you. In order for me to do so I must pass the median or half-way point
in the distance I travel from me to you. As soon as I do so a brand
new median is created. I then must cross this one. The process
repeats itself for infinity, implying in a "real" world I would never
be able to reach you on the other side of the room, so therefore all
movement is merely an illusion!!!!!
-Jason
Erwin Hessle
> Hey guys,
>
> I don't know what the elements are. Okay, I can name them: Earth, Air, Fire,
> Water and Spirt. I can guess they represent something pyscological, that makes
> up the human mind, but I don't know what they *are*. This is probably really
> basic, but can someone please explain?
Fire is will, the impulse to move, to separate, to go, to create.
Water is love, the impulse to unite, to contain, to stay, to maintain.
In a way, fire is change, water is stability or form, the two
fundamental physical concepts.
Air is intellect, the ability to analyze, to coordinate, to apply the
impulse to move towards the object of love. It is the conscious,
reasoning mind. It should also go without saying therefore that air has
the ability to misdirect as much as it does to direct.
Earth is the matter upon which these operate, which from one
perspective is your mind (in the widest sense of that term, being the
whole of your being of which you are aware, which includes everything
you believe to be external).
Spirit is what tries to guide this entire process along the 'correct'
lines. It is spirit which tends to make fire want to go in particular
directions, and which makes water want to unite with particular
objects. Air is the medium through which this is made possible, but as
mentioned above it is also what can muddy the 'message' of spirit and
frustrate the process, distorting both will and love so that informed
choice becomes near impossible.
Ultimately, refining the element of air is the aim of magick, since the
entire subject arises solely from the phenomenon of language. Knowledge
and conversation of the holy guardian angel is 'fixing' the element of
air so that it directs the magician towards the objects of love that
his will tends towards under the guidance of the spirit, the true will,
instead of misdirecting the magician into going where he thinks he
wants to go in the way he thinks he wants to get there.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Absorbed
I'm glad this question was asked because I'd also like to know. I'll
just ramble about what I believe the elements are, then you can correct
me as necessary.
I think it's a safe assumption that the five elements don't refer to
material as in physics, with the periodic table of elements debunking
that theory.
My belief is that the five elements are the building blocks of thought
or emotions or perception, or something in that area. So perhaps fire
might be considered partly composed of anger or the experience of heat,
for example.
I find it interesting that different cosmologies identify different
numbers of elements. Are the five elements really five elements? or are
they just five convenient catagories which the totality of
thought/emotion/perception are split into?
I think the elements might be used as the various parts that compose a
specific angel or demon, and thereby allow someone to attain access to
them during ceremonial magick. This is my guess why the five elements
are necessary.
As to what each of the elements relates to, I have no idea. Are there
some good books on the subject?
FrankB
<1149436765.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> :
> Sidenote: Anybody remember the name of the philosopher who came up
> with a really good paradox concerning movement. It goes like this:
>
> You and I stand on opposite ends of a room. I want to walk over to
> you. In order for me to do so I must pass the median or half-way point
> in the distance I travel from me to you. As soon as I do so a brand
> new median is created. I then must cross this one. The process
> repeats itself for infinity, implying in a "real" world I would never
> be able to reach you on the other side of the room, so therefore all
> movement is merely an illusion!!!!!
Axiom of Zeno.
Good post though.
--
leave a message after the beep
Nechesh
Erwin Hessle wrote:
> Ultimately, refining the element of air is the aim of magick, since the
> entire subject arises solely from the phenomenon of language. Knowledge
> and conversation of the holy guardian angel is 'fixing' the element of
> air so that it directs the magician towards the objects of love that
> his will tends towards under the guidance of the spirit, the true will,
> instead of misdirecting the magician into going where he thinks he
> wants to go in the way he thinks he wants to get there.
>
My own experience differs from this. The refinement of air is more a
prerequisite to the practise of magick rather than its aim. Magick
requires an intellectual appreciation of what you are dealing with.
Once that has been achieved, we then move beyond verbal thought and
conscious understanding, and enter a realm of action and experience.
For example, at the most basic level of ritual magick, when performing
an LBR, we do not consciously translate the God names used in
invocation. Their intonation causes a chain reaction of associations to
bring about an *experience* of energy. This experience is predicated
upon a rational and scientific understanding of the meaning and
associations of the God name. The knowledge comes first. The magick
follows.
Furthermore, when maintaining fixed thought, whether in ritual or
meditation, visualisation is usually more important than verbalisation.
And again, when in knowledge and conversation, my own experience is
very different from an airy discourse. For me, there is no verbal
dialogue. We don't have a chat, despite it being called 'conversation'.
It is visual and energetic and it sometimes includes words, but, for me
at least, the element of air is just one part of what is going on.
Magick is surely about the blending of all 4 elements. It is our
mastery and manipulation of spirit - the catalyst which governs how the
4 elements interract - which determines the efficacy of a given
magickal working.
In Light, Life, Love and Liberty
Nechesh
Erwin Hessle
Nechesh wrote:
> Erwin Hessle wrote:
> > Ultimately, refining the element of air is the aim of magick, since the
> > entire subject arises solely from the phenomenon of language. Knowledge
> > and conversation of the holy guardian angel is 'fixing' the element of
> > air so that it directs the magician towards the objects of love that
> > his will tends towards under the guidance of the spirit, the true will,
> > instead of misdirecting the magician into going where he thinks he
> > wants to go in the way he thinks he wants to get there.
> >
>
> My own experience differs from this.
This is likely because you haven't grasped what I said. See below for
more explanation.
> The refinement of air is more a
> prerequisite to the practise of magick rather than its aim.
As I have said previously, magick is about two things; discovering your
true will, and then doing it. When I spoke of 'the aim of magick' I was
referring to the former, since aims tend to become meaningless after
this.
In another sense, magick is indeed about carrying out the true will,
since to do so is to cause change fully in accordance with will, but
magick as a method of development exists to get one to this point, and
this is the sense in which I used the term in that post.
> Magick
> requires an intellectual appreciation of what you are dealing with.
> Once that has been achieved, we then move beyond verbal thought and
> conscious understanding, and enter a realm of action and experience.
>
> For example, at the most basic level of ritual magick, when performing
> an LBR, we do not consciously translate the God names used in
> invocation. Their intonation causes a chain reaction of associations to
> bring about an *experience* of energy. This experience is predicated
> upon a rational and scientific understanding of the meaning and
> associations of the God name. The knowledge comes first. The magick
> follows.
>
> Furthermore, when maintaining fixed thought, whether in ritual or
> meditation, visualisation is usually more important than verbalisation.
You are using 'air' in a far more restricted sense than I did. Again,
see below.
> And again, when in knowledge and conversation, my own experience is
> very different from an airy discourse. For me, there is no verbal
> dialogue. We don't have a chat, despite it being called 'conversation'.
> It is visual and energetic and it sometimes includes words, but, for me
> at least, the element of air is just one part of what is going on.
>
> Magick is surely about the blending of all 4 elements. It is our
> mastery and manipulation of spirit - the catalyst which governs how the
> 4 elements interract - which determines the efficacy of a given
> magickal working.
If fire is will, and water is love (these are almost the same thing -
the will 'moves' in order to unite, and love pulls the will in a
particular direction) then these depend on the nature of the individual
and its place in the environment. As a completely trivial example, fire
(physical fire, this time) requires a heat source, fuel and oxygen to
burn. In the presence of sufficient heat and oxygen, it will be the
'will' of gasoline to burn, but take away either of those two factors
and this will no longer be its will.
It is obviously difficult to reduce human will down to chemical
reactions like this, but the principle remains. In very simplistic
terms, at any given time the desire to unite (experience) will attract
the will into moving towards the object of that desire. However with
humans the complexity of this desire cannot be satisfied through
physical reaction alone; instead it is the place of the conscious mind
to direct the process to fulfilment. We can of course take the view
that the conscious mind is nothing but a complex set of physical
reactions, but the fact is we experience consciousness and free will,
so that view does not help us here.
Thus, the purpose of the conscious mind (air) is to coordinate the
process of the will (fire) moving the individual towards its object of
desire (water), whatever that may be. As mentioned earlier, here fire
and water depend solely on the conjunction of the nature of the
individual and his position in the environment, i.e. on his true will.
In other words, they are fixed. But, being complex as that is, the
function of air is to determine precisely what it is that he should be
doing, and to come up with a plan for doing it.
If air did a perfect job, the entire question of magick would be
unnecessary, but the fact is that it does not. The first basic way it
can fail it to come up with a faulty plan. For instance, it may know
that the true will of the individual is to have light, but if it does
not know how to strike a match or flick a light switch, then there will
not be fulfillment. On a slightly less mundane level, it may know that
the true will of the individual is to qualify as a doctor, but it
simply lacks the agility and flexibility to successfully tackle the
medical exams.
As I have mentioned in the last few days, this aspect is rarely the
problem for the magician who is smart enough to figure out his true
will in the first place. The real problem (and the 'aim of magick' - in
the sense that I used above - is to remedy this) is that air
misunderstands the true will, misunderstands what it is supposed to be
doing in the first place. The true will rarely speaks so clearly as
that of a crab that shouts 'I pinch! I pinch!' incessantly. When free
from necessity (e.g. for food, water, shelter, protection) the
direction of the true will is much more vague, and the other main
purpose of air is to interpret these vague signals. One might
reasonably assume that given enough time even the dullest intellect
could figure out how to accurately reflect its true will through sheer
trial and error, but the 'aim of magick' is to accelerate this process
so that it might be accomplished within a lifetime.
The major problem with the element of air - being analytical as it is -
is not so much that it does not have the capability of interpreting the
true will correctly, but that it actively gets in the way of itself,
works against itself; it 'muddies the waters' and veils the true will.
The ways in which it does this are countless, but as two trivial
examples we can cite the religious zealot who for whatever reason buys
into his particular brand of kookiness and becomes unable to interpret
anything outside of that light (misinterpreting water), and the
employee who, having a disagreement with a manager, allows all his
dealings with that individual to be driven by his bruised ego instead
of by what is most optimal for him (misinterpreting fire).
Thus, the 'aim of magick' - to use that term once again - is to refine
the element of air so that it pays attention to what actually is,
instead of what its own complex web of faulty associations is trying to
itself what is. Not only is this necessary for 'happiness' or
'fulfilment', but it is also the key to magical power, since it is
primarily this misapprehension of self which prevents you from
utilizing all the powers you have, in the same way that a flashlight
isn't going to guide you anywhere until you figure out how to switch it
on. It is not this knowledge which makes the bulb shine, but without
that knowledge it's only going to shine by accident.
Understand now?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> I'm glad this question was asked because I'd also like to know. I'll
> just ramble about what I believe the elements are, then you can correct
> me as necessary.
>
> I think it's a safe assumption that the five elements don't refer to
> material as in physics, with the periodic table of elements debunking
> that theory.
I think this is a safe assumption also.
> My belief is that the five elements are the building blocks of thought
> or emotions or perception, or something in that area. So perhaps fire
> might be considered partly composed of anger or the experience of heat,
> for example.
This is fluffy, vague and completely unhelpful thinking. There is
nothing substantial enough to correct here.
> I find it interesting that different cosmologies identify different
> numbers of elements. Are the five elements really five elements? or are
> they just five convenient catagories which the totality of
> thought/emotion/perception are split into?
The latter. They are just symbols.
> I think the elements might be used as the various parts that compose a
> specific angel or demon, and thereby allow someone to attain access to
> them during ceremonial magick. This is my guess why the five elements
> are necessary.
Same as above.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Apotheosis
"Absorbed" <purestd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149440146.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Natures Finer Forces by Ram Prasad. This is probably this is the best
exposition of the nature of the elements and how they are to be employed.
It isn't easy but then nothing worthwhile is.
A
Apotheosis
"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
news:1149470798.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Absorbed wrote:
>> I'm glad this question was asked because I'd also like to know. I'll
>> just ramble about what I believe the elements are, then you can correct
>> me as necessary.
>>
>> I think it's a safe assumption that the five elements don't refer to
>> material as in physics, with the periodic table of elements debunking
>> that theory.
>
> I think this is a safe assumption also.
>
>> My belief is that the five elements are the building blocks of thought
>> or emotions or perception, or something in that area. So perhaps fire
>> might be considered partly composed of anger or the experience of heat,
>> for example.
>
> This is fluffy, vague and completely unhelpful thinking. There is
> nothing substantial enough to correct here.
And no understanding with which to correct it...
Apotheosis
"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
news:1149470798.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm glad this question was asked because I'd also like to know. I'll
>> just ramble about what I believe the elements are, then you can correct
>> me as necessary.
>>
>> I think it's a safe assumption that the five elements don't refer to
>> material as in physics, with the periodic table of elements debunking
>> that theory.
>
> I think this is a safe assumption also.
>
>> My belief is that the five elements are the building blocks of thought
>> or emotions or perception, or something in that area. So perhaps fire
>> might be considered partly composed of anger or the experience of heat,
>> for example.
>
> This is fluffy, vague and completely unhelpful thinking. There is
> nothing substantial enough to correct here.
>
>> I find it interesting that different cosmologies identify different
>> numbers of elements. Are the five elements really five elements? or are
>> they just five convenient catagories which the totality of
>> thought/emotion/perception are split into?
>
> The latter. They are just symbols.
They are most certainly not just symbols. Clearly you have no knowledge of
this subject whatever. Have some dignity and shut up.
A
Apotheosis
This is such extreme crap it is difficult to correct it. Best to throw it
all away. Read the books instead of listening to this nonsense.
Almost unbelievable, even from Hessle.
A
Apotheosis
"Nechesh" <Nec...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1149461080.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Erwin Hessle wrote:
>> Ultimately, refining the element of air is the aim of magick, since the
>> entire subject arises solely from the phenomenon of language. Knowledge
>> and conversation of the holy guardian angel is 'fixing' the element of
>> air so that it directs the magician towards the objects of love that
>> his will tends towards under the guidance of the spirit, the true will,
>> instead of misdirecting the magician into going where he thinks he
>> wants to go in the way he thinks he wants to get there.
>>
>
> My own experience differs from this.
So would anyone who actually knows something about Magic.
> The refinement of air is more a
> prerequisite to the practise of magick rather than its aim. Magick
> requires an intellectual appreciation of what you are dealing with.
> Once that has been achieved, we then move beyond verbal thought and
> conscious understanding, and enter a realm of action and experience.
Magic is best done from a standpoint of an equilibrium between the elements
To focus on Air is insufficient.
> For example, at the most basic level of ritual magick, when performing
> an LBR, we do not consciously translate the God names used in
> invocation. Their intonation causes a chain reaction of associations to
> bring about an *experience* of energy. This experience is predicated
> upon a rational and scientific understanding of the meaning and
> associations of the God name. The knowledge comes first. The magick
> follows.
The last buit is certainly true, the first bit may be true.
> Furthermore, when maintaining fixed thought, whether in ritual or
> meditation, visualisation is usually more important than verbalisation.
This is certainly true, although sound is important 'By sounds and images
are all powers awakened and re-awakened' (GD Neophyte Ritual).
> And again, when in knowledge and conversation, my own experience is
> very different from an airy discourse. For me, there is no verbal
> dialogue.
Excellent, very true and worth restating again and again. Communication like
this arises from within the Magician. Which should give some insights as to
the mechanisms in use.
> We don't have a chat, despite it being called 'conversation'.
> It is visual and energetic and it sometimes includes words, but, for me
> at least, the element of air is just one part of what is going on.
True.
> Magick is surely about the blending of all 4 elements. It is our
> mastery and manipulation of spirit - the catalyst which governs how the
> 4 elements interract - which determines the efficacy of a given
> magickal working.
Indeed it is, or rather, that is where Magic starts. A good and insightful
post, one which eclipses the mostly nonsense which has been said on the
subject thus far.
A
Apotheosis
>
> Nechesh wrote:
>> Erwin Hessle wrote:
>> > Ultimately, refining the element of air is the aim of magick, since the
>> > entire subject arises solely from the phenomenon of language. Knowledge
>> > and conversation of the holy guardian angel is 'fixing' the element of
>> > air so that it directs the magician towards the objects of love that
>> > his will tends towards under the guidance of the spirit, the true will,
>> > instead of misdirecting the magician into going where he thinks he
>> > wants to go in the way he thinks he wants to get there.
>> >
>>
>> My own experience differs from this.
>
> This is likely because you haven't grasped what I said. See below for
> more explanation.
No, it is most likely because you are wrong.
>> The refinement of air is more a
>> prerequisite to the practise of magick rather than its aim.
>
> As I have said previously, magick is about two things; discovering your
> true will, and then doing it. When I spoke of 'the aim of magick' I was
> referring to the former, since aims tend to become meaningless after
> this.
then you should have said this. The only way your comment makes any sense at
all is if you equate Air and Tiphareth, and even then, if you do this you
are being both facile and naive.
> In another sense, magick is indeed about carrying out the true will,
> since to do so is to cause change fully in accordance with will, but
> magick as a method of development exists to get one to this point, and
> this is the sense in which I used the term in that post.
But this isnt what you said. *ding*
>> Magick
>> requires an intellectual appreciation of what you are dealing with.
>> Once that has been achieved, we then move beyond verbal thought and
>> conscious understanding, and enter a realm of action and experience.
>>
>> For example, at the most basic level of ritual magick, when performing
>> an LBR, we do not consciously translate the God names used in
>> invocation. Their intonation causes a chain reaction of associations to
>> bring about an *experience* of energy. This experience is predicated
>> upon a rational and scientific understanding of the meaning and
>> associations of the God name. The knowledge comes first. The magick
>> follows.
>>
>> Furthermore, when maintaining fixed thought, whether in ritual or
>> meditation, visualisation is usually more important than verbalisation.
>
> You are using 'air' in a far more restricted sense than I did. Again,
> see below.
He is using Air in the only possible context for elemental air. You have
expanded the context in a foolhardy and ignorant way.
>> And again, when in knowledge and conversation, my own experience is
>> very different from an airy discourse. For me, there is no verbal
>> dialogue. We don't have a chat, despite it being called 'conversation'.
>> It is visual and energetic and it sometimes includes words, but, for me
>> at least, the element of air is just one part of what is going on.
>>
>> Magick is surely about the blending of all 4 elements. It is our
>> mastery and manipulation of spirit - the catalyst which governs how the
>> 4 elements interract - which determines the efficacy of a given
>> magickal working.
>
> If fire is will,
It isnt.
> and water is love
It isnt.
> (these are almost the same thing -
They aren't.
> the will 'moves' in order to unite, and love pulls the will in a
> particular direction) then these depend on the nature of the individual
> and its place in the environment.
The problem with confusing Water and Love is you then consider Agape to be a
natural consequence of elemental water. Which it isnt, or anything like it.
You really dont know this stuff do you?
> As a completely trivial example, fire
> (physical fire, this time) requires a heat source, fuel and oxygen to
> burn. In the presence of sufficient heat and oxygen, it will be the
> 'will' of gasoline to burn, but take away either of those two factors
> and this will no longer be its will.
Rubbish.
> It is obviously difficult to reduce human will down to chemical
> reactions like this, but the principle remains. In very simplistic
> terms, at any given time the desire to unite (experience) will attract
> the will into moving towards the object of that desire. However with
> humans the complexity of this desire cannot be satisfied through
> physical reaction alone; instead it is the place of the conscious mind
> to direct the process to fulfilment. We can of course take the view
> that the conscious mind is nothing but a complex set of physical
> reactions, but the fact is we experience consciousness and free will,
> so that view does not help us here.
This is almost complete bollocks. You are showing the limitations of your
understanding in an alarming way. You simply cannot equate will with Will,
and Will with Fire or Water with Love. This really is shockingly ignorant of
you.
<futher travesties snipped>
>
> Understand now?
he should by now understand that you are a complete fool and know nothing
about High Magic. I suspect you are a Thelemite which explains some of this
shallowness but really, you should have a nice chat with your mentor about
your alarmingly poor level of insight.
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
yeah, right.
A
bb
says...
>
>
>
>I think the elements might be used as the various parts that compose a
>specific angel or demon, and thereby allow someone to attain access to
>them during ceremonial magick. This is my guess why the five elements
>are necessary.
I don't know about demons.
I've heard the four archangels invoked in the 'Lesser Banishing Ritual of the
Pentagram' described as the 'thinking' part of the element, which regulates it
and holds it in balance. I'm not sure angels can be described as being made of
elements though as some represent planetary forces etc. which are different
(higher?).
A definition of angels I've seen is that 'they are agents of god', I don't think
that's wrong, but I'm not very happy with it as it seems a bit inaccurate. I've
just thought that for the fifth element in the LBRP the magician is kinda the
angel for spirit as he stands in the fifth pentagram.
bb
>
>Hey guys,
>
>I don't know what the elements are. Okay, I can name them: Earth, Air, Fire,
>Water and Spirt. I can guess they represent something pyscological, that makes
>up the human mind, but I don't know what they *are*. This is probably really
>basic, but can someone please explain?
>
>
Thanks for your replies!
Bassos
"Brett" <xxbw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oss582peng0itg2g1...@4ax.com...
4 basic forces
http://sundae.triumf.ca/pub2/ctour/pamphlets/forces.html
"The most powerful of the forces, appropriately known as the strong or
nuclear force, binds together the protons and neutrons (i.e. "nucleons")
that constitute the nuclei of atoms."
Binding together : earth ?
"Next in strength comes the electromagnetic force which has only 1/14 the
power of the strong force at this distance, but its influence extends over a
much greater span. This force acts between any particles carrying an
electric charge. It keeps (negatively charged) electrons close to the
(positive) nuclei of atoms, and so governs chemical reactions "
Charge interactions : water ?
" Next comes the weak force, with 1/10e8 the power of the strong force. It
governs the radioactive decay of some elementary particles. Physicists have
recently found the carriers that transmit this force, and have named them
the W and Z particles. They are much more massive than protons or neutrons,
and have extremely short lifetimes. "
Radiactive decay : air ?
"At first sight, gravity seems to be the feeblest force in the universe,
with only 1/10e46 the power of the strong force. However, gravity maintains
its effects over enormous distances and is therefore the dominant influence
throughout the known cosmos. How is gravity transmitted? Scientists are
looking for particles (called gravitons) as well as for gravitational waves.
This is another area of the incredible, topsy-turvy world of subatomic and
cosmic physics that awaits further exploration. "
Gravity : fire ?
Perhaps call gluons (quarks cs) aetherial :)
Or the single unifying force of the G.U.T. (not yet found/operationalized)
Apotheosis
"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e60u3...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <1149440146.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Absorbed
> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>I think the elements might be used as the various parts that compose a
>>specific angel or demon, and thereby allow someone to attain access to
>>them during ceremonial magick. This is my guess why the five elements
>>are necessary.
>
> I don't know about demons.
>
> I've heard the four archangels invoked in the 'Lesser Banishing Ritual of
> the
> Pentagram' described as the 'thinking' part of the element, which
> regulates it
> and holds it in balance. I'm not sure angels can be described as being
> made of
> elements though as some represent planetary forces etc. which are
> different
> (higher?).
You are right. Angelic names are descriptions of a function rather than a
name for an individual. They are not composed of elements except insofar as
the Light of which they are manifestations contains what will later become
the elements, firstly in Yesod and then in Malkuth.
> A definition of angels I've seen is that 'they are agents of god', I don't
> think
> that's wrong, but I'm not very happy with it as it seems a bit inaccurate.
> I've
> just thought that for the fifth element in the LBRP the magician is kinda
> the
> angel for spirit as he stands in the fifth pentagram.
They are indeed in that they can be considered to manage a part of Creation.
Don't confuse 'Spriit' with Akasa (which is not the same) or with the Light
or 'Spirit' in the sense of Shekinah. These are different things. Spirit in
the elemental sense ought to be considered as the 'Quintessence', the
principle which is itself a function of the Light but which is not the
Light, and from which the elements themselves coalesce.
A
>
>
> --
> It's bad luck to be superstitious.
It is indeed.
Tom
"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e60u3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> I don't know about demons.
Oh, I think you do. It's just that you don't necessarily label them demons.
Lots of folks don't.
> I've heard the four archangels invoked in the 'Lesser Banishing Ritual of
> the
> Pentagram' described as the 'thinking' part of the element, which
> regulates it
> and holds it in balance. I'm not sure angels can be described as being
> made of
> elements though as some represent planetary forces etc. which are
> different
> (higher?).
No, the archangels of the quarters are associated with a given element, but
they are not composed of it. Nor are they planetary forces, even though
they are sometimes associated with particular planetary forces.
> A definition of angels I've seen is that 'they are agents of god', I don't
> think
> that's wrong, but I'm not very happy with it as it seems a bit inaccurate.
It's pretty accurate, actually. However, what one conceives of as "god" is
somewhat variable, which makes the description equally variable.
> I've
> just thought that for the fifth element in the LBRP the magician is kinda
> the
> angel for spirit as he stands in the fifth pentagram.
There is no fifth pentagram in the LBRP. In the center shines a six-rayed
star, a hexagram.
Erwin Hessle
Apotheosis wrote:
> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
> news:1149470798.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Absorbed wrote:
> >> I'm glad this question was asked because I'd also like to know. I'll
> >> just ramble about what I believe the elements are, then you can correct
> >> me as necessary.
> >>
> >> I think it's a safe assumption that the five elements don't refer to
> >> material as in physics, with the periodic table of elements debunking
> >> that theory.
> >
> > I think this is a safe assumption also.
> >
> >> My belief is that the five elements are the building blocks of thought
> >> or emotions or perception, or something in that area. So perhaps fire
> >> might be considered partly composed of anger or the experience of heat,
> >> for example.
> >
> > This is fluffy, vague and completely unhelpful thinking. There is
> > nothing substantial enough to correct here.
>
> And no understanding with which to correct it...
Correct, you don't have any.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
They most certainly are, fuckwit.
> Clearly you have no knowledge of
> this subject whatever.
Coming from someone who thinks magick is all about "invoking yourself"?
Don't make me laugh.
> Have some dignity and shut up.
Oh the fucking irony.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
Yes, "read the books".
Heaven forbid you should have a thought of your own. That just wouldn't
be "real occultism", would it?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
Apotheosis wrote:
> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
> news:1149470456.8...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Nechesh wrote:
> >> Erwin Hessle wrote:
> >> > Ultimately, refining the element of air is the aim of magick, since the
> >> > entire subject arises solely from the phenomenon of language. Knowledge
> >> > and conversation of the holy guardian angel is 'fixing' the element of
> >> > air so that it directs the magician towards the objects of love that
> >> > his will tends towards under the guidance of the spirit, the true will,
> >> > instead of misdirecting the magician into going where he thinks he
> >> > wants to go in the way he thinks he wants to get there.
> >> >
> >>
> >> My own experience differs from this.
> >
> > This is likely because you haven't grasped what I said. See below for
> > more explanation.
>
> No, it is most likely because you are wrong.
No, it's most likely because he didn't grasp what I said.
> >> The refinement of air is more a
> >> prerequisite to the practise of magick rather than its aim.
> >
> > As I have said previously, magick is about two things; discovering your
> > true will, and then doing it. When I spoke of 'the aim of magick' I was
> > referring to the former, since aims tend to become meaningless after
> > this.
>
> then you should have said this.
Oh really? So you when you try to claim that when you said magick is
all about "invoking yourself" you weren't being explicit, what you
really mean is that you think magick is all about "invoking yourself",
right?
> The only way your comment makes any sense at
> all is if you equate Air and Tiphareth, and even then, if you do this you
> are being both facile and naive.
This is bizarre tripe even from you.
> > In another sense, magick is indeed about carrying out the true will,
> > since to do so is to cause change fully in accordance with will, but
> > magick as a method of development exists to get one to this point, and
> > this is the sense in which I used the term in that post.
>
> But this isnt what you said. *ding*
Guess you'd better go invoke yourself then. *dong*
> >> Magick
> >> requires an intellectual appreciation of what you are dealing with.
> >> Once that has been achieved, we then move beyond verbal thought and
> >> conscious understanding, and enter a realm of action and experience.
> >>
> >> For example, at the most basic level of ritual magick, when performing
> >> an LBR, we do not consciously translate the God names used in
> >> invocation. Their intonation causes a chain reaction of associations to
> >> bring about an *experience* of energy. This experience is predicated
> >> upon a rational and scientific understanding of the meaning and
> >> associations of the God name. The knowledge comes first. The magick
> >> follows.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, when maintaining fixed thought, whether in ritual or
> >> meditation, visualisation is usually more important than verbalisation.
> >
> > You are using 'air' in a far more restricted sense than I did. Again,
> > see below.
>
> He is using Air in the only possible context for elemental air.
Ah yes. There's only one way to interpret a symbol. Of course.
> You have
> expanded the context in a foolhardy and ignorant way.
>
>
>
> >> And again, when in knowledge and conversation, my own experience is
> >> very different from an airy discourse. For me, there is no verbal
> >> dialogue. We don't have a chat, despite it being called 'conversation'.
> >> It is visual and energetic and it sometimes includes words, but, for me
> >> at least, the element of air is just one part of what is going on.
> >>
> >> Magick is surely about the blending of all 4 elements. It is our
> >> mastery and manipulation of spirit - the catalyst which governs how the
> >> 4 elements interract - which determines the efficacy of a given
> >> magickal working.
> >
> > If fire is will,
>
> It isnt.
It is.
> > and water is love
>
> It isnt.
It is.
> > (these are almost the same thing -
>
> They aren't.
They are.
> > the will 'moves' in order to unite, and love pulls the will in a
> > particular direction) then these depend on the nature of the individual
> > and its place in the environment.
>
> The problem with confusing Water and Love is you then consider Agape to be a
> natural consequence of elemental water.
'elemental water' doesn't have consequences, fuckwit, it's a symbol.
As I said before, you seem to think that you can make a cat grow wings
by calling it a bird.
> Which it isnt, or anything like it.
> You really dont know this stuff do you?
>
> > As a completely trivial example, fire
> > (physical fire, this time) requires a heat source, fuel and oxygen to
> > burn. In the presence of sufficient heat and oxygen, it will be the
> > 'will' of gasoline to burn, but take away either of those two factors
> > and this will no longer be its will.
>
> Rubbish.
Indeed you are.
> > It is obviously difficult to reduce human will down to chemical
> > reactions like this, but the principle remains. In very simplistic
> > terms, at any given time the desire to unite (experience) will attract
> > the will into moving towards the object of that desire. However with
> > humans the complexity of this desire cannot be satisfied through
> > physical reaction alone; instead it is the place of the conscious mind
> > to direct the process to fulfilment. We can of course take the view
> > that the conscious mind is nothing but a complex set of physical
> > reactions, but the fact is we experience consciousness and free will,
> > so that view does not help us here.
>
> This is almost complete bollocks. You are showing the limitations of your
> understanding in an alarming way. You simply cannot equate will with Will,
Ah yes. Will doesn't mean will. Just like "invoking yourself" doesn't
mean "invoking yourself", right?
> and Will with Fire or Water with Love. This really is shockingly ignorant of
> you.
>
>
>
> <futher travesties snipped>
>
> >
> > Understand now?
>
> he should by now understand that you are a complete fool and know nothing
> about High Magic. I suspect you are a Thelemite which explains some of this
> shallowness but really, you should have a nice chat with your mentor about
> your alarmingly poor level of insight.
We'll see.
Yet more insubstantial crap from you.
You're starting to go to pieces.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
bb
>
>
>"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e60u3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I don't know about demons.
>
>Oh, I think you do. It's just that you don't necessarily label them demons.
>Lots of folks don't.
>
I don't know about demons being made of elements.
I would think that demons are personifications of things like hate or addiction,
especially things in the subconscious. But when I look up a demon in, say, the
Goetia it says stuff along the lines of "he looks a bit like an owl and can
teach math". I suppose this could be because it's written from the view of what
they can do for you, rather than what they are. I can't identify which demon in
the Goetia covers, say, addiction. There is one that is supposed to steal cash,
I guess that's the one that makes the magician steal.
Anyway back to the addiction example, I guess you could always just make your
own representation up. Then to get over your addiction I suppose you wouldn't
command it, as it wants attention, but find out what the root cause of the
addiction is and make a pact to deal with it.
>> I've heard the four archangels invoked in the 'Lesser Banishing Ritual of
>> the
>> Pentagram' described as the 'thinking' part of the element, which
>> regulates it
>> and holds it in balance. I'm not sure angels can be described as being
>> made of
>> elements though as some represent planetary forces etc. which are
>> different
>> (higher?).
>
>No, the archangels of the quarters are associated with a given element, but
>they are not composed of it. Nor are they planetary forces, even though
>they are sometimes associated with particular planetary forces.
>
>> A definition of angels I've seen is that 'they are agents of god', I don't
>> think
>> that's wrong, but I'm not very happy with it as it seems a bit inaccurate.
>
>It's pretty accurate, actually. However, what one conceives of as "god" is
>somewhat variable, which makes the description equally variable.
>
Is it inaccurate to say they are symbols of the 'control' of a force?
>> I've
>> just thought that for the fifth element in the LBRP the magician is kinda
>> the
>> angel for spirit as he stands in the fifth pentagram.
>
>There is no fifth pentagram in the LBRP. In the center shines a six-rayed
>star, a hexagram.
>
There is a version of the LBRP with a fifth pentagram as well as a
hexagram, I've seen it in DMK's 'Modern Magick' and other places.
http://www.asiya.org/lbrp.html
When I checked I found the more traditional version doesn't have a fifth
pentagram. Instead you just stay with your arms outstretched as a 'god
man' - Christ being sacrificed? To be reborn?
bb
>
>In article <gc2dnYKx5a3e2RnZ...@comcast.com>, Tom says...
>>
>>
>>"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e60u3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> I don't know about demons.
>>
>>Oh, I think you do. It's just that you don't necessarily label them demons.
>>Lots of folks don't.
>>
>
>I don't know about demons being made of elements.
>
>I would think that demons are personifications of things like hate or addiction,
>especially things in the subconscious. But when I look up a demon in, say, the
>Goetia it says stuff along the lines of "he looks a bit like an owl and can
>teach math". I suppose this could be because it's written from the view of what
>they can do for you, rather than what they are. I can't identify which demon in
>the Goetia covers, say, addiction. There is one that is supposed to steal cash,
>I guess that's the one that makes the magician steal.
>
Correction - Shax doesn't just steal cash but "to steal money out of the houses
of Kings, and to carry it again in 1,200 years." Whatever that means.
mika
bb wrote:
> I've heard the four archangels invoked in the 'Lesser Banishing Ritual of the
> Pentagram' described as the 'thinking' part of the element, which regulates it
> and holds it in balance.
In my experience, the best way to educate yourself about the symbolism
in the LBRP and other rituals of the pentagram, hexagram, etc. is to
practice the ritual daily for a while. Even once a day for only a few
weeks can provide you with significant insights. Why try to interpret
these symbols in your imagination when you can discover and experience
them first hand?
> I'm not sure angels can be described as being made of
> elements though as some represent planetary forces etc. which are different
> (higher?).
Personally, I prefer "different" to "higher". Less value judgement.
> A definition of angels I've seen is that 'they are agents of god', I don't think
> that's wrong, but I'm not very happy with it as it seems a bit inaccurate.
Meh, imo you don't need to define what an angel is in order to work
with one. First experience, then worry about defining the experience
if you choose.
> I've
> just thought that for the fifth element in the LBRP the magician is kinda the
> angel for spirit as he stands in the fifth pentagram.
I do the LBRP with a hexagram in the center. Otherwise, sure, the
operator is the "fifth element", the spirit, the central force around
which the other elements orbit. For me, the experience is somewhat
like being in the center of a gyroscope. But again, I wouldn't worry
so much about interpreting the LBRP at this point. Just do it and see
what you come up with through experience.
Tom
"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e61lc...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <gc2dnYKx5a3e2RnZ...@comcast.com>, Tom says...
>>
>>
>>"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e60u3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> I don't know about demons.
>>
>>Oh, I think you do. It's just that you don't necessarily label them
>>demons.
>>Lots of folks don't.
>>
>
> I don't know about demons being made of elements.
Everything is made of elements. Ain't'cha studied Plato?
> I would think that demons are personifications of things like hate or
> addiction,
> especially things in the subconscious.
Yes, at least a good number of them are. And you said you didn't know about
demons...
> But when I look up a demon in, say, the
> Goetia it says stuff along the lines of "he looks a bit like an owl and
> can
> teach math".
Heh. Good example.
> I suppose this could be because it's written from the view of what
> they can do for you, rather than what they are.
Or how they appear when filtered through certain beliefs. In good design
engineering, form and function complement one another.
> I can't identify which demon in
> the Goetia covers, say, addiction.
The authors of the Lemegeton didn't think in terms of addiction as a single
thing. It's all bound up in what you desire. Addiction is immoderate
desire. For anything. So all demons represent addiction in one form or
another, if they're not properly controlled.
> Anyway back to the addiction example, I guess you could always just make
> your
> own representation up. Then to get over your addiction I suppose you
> wouldn't
> command it, as it wants attention, but find out what the root cause of the
> addiction is and make a pact to deal with it.
Immoderate desire is the root cause of addiction.
>>> A definition of angels I've seen is that 'they are agents of god', I
>>> don't
>>> think
>>> that's wrong, but I'm not very happy with it as it seems a bit
>>> inaccurate.
>>
>>It's pretty accurate, actually. However, what one conceives of as "god"
>>is
>>somewhat variable, which makes the description equally variable.
>
> Is it inaccurate to say they are symbols of the 'control' of a force?
A force intelligently controlled, perhaps.
>>There is no fifth pentagram in the LBRP. In the center shines a six-rayed
>>star, a hexagram.
>
> There is a version of the LBRP with a fifth pentagram as well as a
> hexagram, I've seen it in DMK's 'Modern Magick' and other places.
Yes, there are always variations. People think up all sorts of things.
> When I checked I found the more traditional version doesn't have a fifth
> pentagram. Instead you just stay with your arms outstretched as a 'god
> man' - Christ being sacrificed? To be reborn?
Death and rebirth is the formula of initiation and transformation.
Absorbed
Tom wrote:
> "bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e61lc...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > In article <gc2dnYKx5a3e2RnZ...@comcast.com>, Tom says...
> >>"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e60u3...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >>> I don't know about demons.
> >>
> >>Oh, I think you do. It's just that you don't necessarily label them
> >>demons.
> >>Lots of folks don't.
> >>
> >
> > I don't know about demons being made of elements.
>
> Everything is made of elements. Ain't'cha studied Plato?
I've noticed you do this before, where you take someone's words
literally instead of stepping inside their paradigm. Perhaps you
believe that people should be more accurate, but for me it seems that
you are demanding a more articulate post, even though you already know
what is going to be said. Why be so persnickety?
Gavriel
Sefer Yetsirah 3:4 (GRA Version)
"Three Mothers, AM"Sh,
in the Universe are air, water, fire.
Heaven was created from fire
Earth was created from water
And air from Breath decides between them."
***Thanks, Erwin. This was a very interesting read.
--
==
B'shalom,
Casey Sheldon
"The animal that coils in a circle is the serpent; that's why so many
cults and myths of the serpent exist, because it's hard to represent the
return of the sun by the coiling of a hippopotamus."
- Foucault's Pendulum, by Umberto Eco
Asiya
news:1287qg4...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Nechesh" <Nec...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149461080.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> meditation, visualisation is usually more important than
>> verbalisation.
>
> This is certainly true, although sound is important 'By sounds and
> images are all powers awakened and re-awakened' (GD Neophyte Ritual).
The correct quote is actually "for by Names and Images are all Powers
awakened and re-awakened".
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
Tom
>
> Tom wrote:
>> "bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e61lc...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> > In article <gc2dnYKx5a3e2RnZ...@comcast.com>, Tom says...
>> >>"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e60u3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >>> I don't know about demons.
>> >>
>> >>Oh, I think you do. It's just that you don't necessarily label them
>> >>demons.
>> >>Lots of folks don't.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't know about demons being made of elements.
>>
>> Everything is made of elements. Ain't'cha studied Plato?
>
> I've noticed you do this before, where you take someone's words
> literally instead of stepping inside their paradigm.
Yeah. I do that on purpose.
> Perhaps you
> believe that people should be more accurate, but for me it seems that
> you are demanding a more articulate post, even though you already know
> what is going to be said. Why be so persnickety?
Because it's pretty helpful to see things from different perspectives.
One of the best ways I've found to solve apparently insoluble problems is to
reframe them.
Tom
"Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TN7hg.46630$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Hey, give him a break. That was all thirty years ago. He doesn't actually
do any of that stuff now, you know.
Apotheosis
Well possibly. The problem with you Erwin appears to be that you haven't
read the books at all. All of what you think is your own work. It may be
crap, indeed it *is* crap, but it is all yours.
Of course. most people like to learn from others before graduating to
original thought. Like in schools...
A
Apotheosis
>
> Apotheosis wrote:
>> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149470456.8...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
<great amounts of uneducated nonsense from a bogus Magister snipped>
>> he should by now understand that you are a complete fool and know nothing
>> about High Magic. I suspect you are a Thelemite which explains some of
>> this
>> shallowness but really, you should have a nice chat with your mentor
>> about
>> your alarmingly poor level of insight.
>
> We'll see.
>
> Yet more insubstantial crap from you.
>
> You're starting to go to pieces.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Well, this is the one respect in which you *are* actually ahead of me.
Treasure it, it won't happen very often.
A
Apotheosis
"Absorbed" <purestd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149550177....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> "bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e61lc...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> > In article <gc2dnYKx5a3e2RnZ...@comcast.com>, Tom says...
>> >>"bb" <b...@b.com> wrote in message news:e60u3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >>> I don't know about demons.
>> >>
>> >>Oh, I think you do. It's just that you don't necessarily label them
>> >>demons.
>> >>Lots of folks don't.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't know about demons being made of elements.
>>
>> Everything is made of elements. Ain't'cha studied Plato?
Demons are mnade of elements?
hahahahahahahaha. Is that why you eat them Tommy?
>
> I've noticed you do this before, where you take someone's words
> literally instead of stepping inside their paradigm. Perhaps you
> believe that people should be more accurate, but for me it seems that
> you are demanding a more articulate post, even though you already know
> what is going to be said. Why be so persnickety?
Because he is an idiot.
A
>
Apotheosis
"Gavriel" <ayrk...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4y4hg.17543$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Interesting but stupid and ill-informed.
Do not place reliance upon it, read reputable sources instead, there are
lots of them.
A
Apotheosis
"Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TN7hg.46630$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
And we do what with the names? It wouldn't be make sounds would it?
Nevertheless I accept the correction to my misremembered quote. Long time
since I did or saw a 0=0.
A
A
Apotheosis
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RO6dnT3E8bushBjZ...@comcast.com...
Correct. But it was only 17 years ago.
A
Apotheosis
or distort them...
A
Satyr
Heh.
Actually, sound is important, possibly more than visualization when it
comes to calming the mind. Patanjali discusses the practice of
repeating a mantra. A monkey, when on the ground, is always nervous
and hopping about incessantly, but set a stick upright in the ground
and the monkey will climb up and rest. The mind is the monkey. The
mantra is the stick.
Of course the GD wasn't much into calming their minds and neither is
this fuckwit.
Visualization can play a part in meditation, but to say that it's more
important puts unnatural and rather naive limitations on the practice.
One could meditate on a physical object and no visualization would be
required, or one might meditate on an idea or particular sound or
word, and in some advanced practices, even no object at all.
As for ritual, yes, visualization is somewhat important, I suppose,
but the trick is to be able to do it with your eyes open. With closed
eyes, whether in meditation or in ritual, the mind is much more liable
to wander off.
Erwin Hessle
So you admit you don't do any of that stuff now?
> But it was only 17 years ago.
You were initiated 'in the 70s' 17 years ago?
Funny that, eh?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
Fuckwit admits he only reads about magick.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Apotheosis
"Satyr" <saty...@NoPressedPighotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.06...@NoPressedPighotmail.com...
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:47:47 +0000, Asiya wrote:
>
>> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
>> news:1287qg4...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Nechesh" <Nec...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1149461080.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Furthermore, when maintaining fixed thought, whether in ritual or
>>>> meditation, visualisation is usually more important than
>>>> verbalisation.
>>>
>>> This is certainly true, although sound is important 'By sounds and
>>> images are all powers awakened and re-awakened' (GD Neophyte
>>> Ritual).
>>
>> The correct quote is actually "for by Names and Images are all
>> Powers awakened and re-awakened".
>
> Heh.
>
> Actually, sound is important, possibly more than visualization when it
> comes to calming the mind. Patanjali discusses the practice of
> repeating a mantra. A monkey, when on the ground, is always nervous
> and hopping about incessantly, but set a stick upright in the ground
> and the monkey will climb up and rest. The mind is the monkey. The
> mantra is the stick.
>
> Of course the GD wasn't much into calming their minds and neither is
> this fuckwit.
Strange then that this fuckwit understands more about Magic than Satyr is it
not? Not that you would agree oof course, it is more important for you to
feel clever. Also remember 3 things: firstly it is a mistake to base your
assessment of people's knowledge, understanding or ability on personal likes
and dislikes. Although most people do this, they usually grow out of it.
Secondly I acknowledge that I have made you feel foolish on the past. I
apologise for this but not seiously. If you behave like a fool I will tell
you why you are a fool. Thirdly, neithe you nor anyone in here has ever been
able to demonstrate that I am wrong in matter of Magical principle. Indeed,
you have seen that I am right on occasion and have held your tongue on the
basis of your personal dislike of me.
Nurse your wounds with more dignity Satyr, you have nothing of importance to
offer.
> Visualization can play a part in meditation, but to say that it's more
> important puts unnatural and rather naive limitations on the practice.
> One could meditate on a physical object and no visualization would be
> required, or one might meditate on an idea or particular sound or
> word, and in some advanced practices, even no object at all.
>
> As for ritual, yes, visualization is somewhat important, I suppose,
You supoose? well if you knew anything at all you would understand that
visualisation is probably the most important part of ritual. Ifear you do on
this occasion look even more stupid than you normally do.
> but the trick is to be able to do it with your eyes open. With closed
> eyes, whether in meditation or in ritual, the mind is much more liable
> to wander off.
The trick is to do it in your mind not your eyes. When done properly in the
mind, the eyes see what is imagined. Try to get it right before spouting
off...
A
Apotheosis
Try not to be more stupid than the Good God made you. I was initiated in the
1970's. The last time I saw a 0=0 performed is when I performed it in 1989.
17 years ago.
All clear now? Try not to be in such a rush to salvage your lost
credibility, it makes you careless.
A
A
Apotheosis
There you go again, spouting before thinking. Fuckwit says that reading is
important. You disagree but that is unsurprising.
A
Tom
>
> You were initiated 'in the 70s' 17 years ago?
>
> Funny that, eh?
Hey, Archie says he teaches math. Of course, he also says he's a
psychologist. And an expert occultist. And God Almighty.
Archie says lots of things like that.
Tom
>>
>> Tom wrote:
>>>
>>> Everything is made of elements. Ain't'cha studied Plato?
>
> Demons are mnade of elements?
Didn;t you just read what I wrote? *Everything* is made of elements. Read
Plato.
Even after I tell you what an element is, you still don't get it. It's like
you're not paying any attention to the world around you at all, what with
being so completely preoccupied with the fantastic crap floating around
inside your head.
> hahahahahahahaha. Is that why you eat them Tommy?
No, my foolish friend, it's not.
Tom
>
> "Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:TN7hg.46630$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
>> news:1287qg4...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> images are all powers awakened and re-awakened' (GD Neophyte Ritual).
>>
>> The correct quote is actually "for by Names and Images are all Powers
>> awakened and re-awakened".
>
Sometimes. Not always. They can be drawn using kameas, inscribed on
pentacles, visualized, and operated upon by gematria, temurah, and
notariqon, just to name a few other things one can do with Names.
I've never seen someone as immersed in fantasy as you are display such an
impoverished imagination as you do.
> Nevertheless I accept the correction to my misremembered quote.
You have never, in all your time in alt.magick, quoted any literary source
accurately. Not even once. This is just another in your long list of
scholastic blunders.
Satyr
>
> "Satyr" <saty...@NoPressedPighotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.06.06...@NoPressedPighotmail.com...
>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:47:47 +0000, Asiya wrote:
>>
>>> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
>>> news:1287qg4...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> This is certainly true, although sound is important 'By sounds
>>>> and images are all powers awakened and re-awakened' (GD Neophyte
>>>> Ritual).
>>>
>>> The correct quote is actually "for by Names and Images are all
>>> Powers awakened and re-awakened".
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> Actually, sound is important, possibly more than visualization when
>> it comes to calming the mind. Patanjali discusses the practice of
>> repeating a mantra. A monkey, when on the ground, is always nervous
>> and hopping about incessantly, but set a stick upright in the
>> ground and the monkey will climb up and rest. The mind is the
>> monkey. The mantra is the stick.
>>
>> Of course the GD wasn't much into calming their minds and neither
>> is this fuckwit.
>
> Strange then that this fuckwit understands more about Magic than
> Satyr is it not?
Were it true, indeed it would be astonishing. So you agree that you
are a fuckwit, then?
> Not that you would agree oof course, it is more important for you to
> feel clever.
No, not really. I am clever, but it is of little if any importance.
> Also remember 3 things: firstly it is a mistake to base your
> assessment of people's knowledge, understanding or ability on
> personal likes and dislikes. Although most people do this, they
> usually grow out of it.
I agree. However, your knowledge, understanding, and ability - or
rather the lack thereof - speak for themselves in every post you make.
> Secondly I acknowledge that I have made you feel foolish on the
> past. I apologise for this but not seiously. If you behave like a
> fool I will tell you why you are a fool.
No. You may only acknowledge that you fancy you made me feel foolish -
an understandable error on your part, given your sad delusions of
grandeur. If memory serves, you dogged my every post for weeks on end,
yapping and whinging and humping away at my leg like some demented
chihuahua, yet all I ever felt was vaguely flattered.
> Thirdly, neithe you nor anyone in here has ever been able to
> demonstrate that I am wrong in matter of Magical principle. Indeed,
> you have seen that I am right on occasion and have held your tongue
> on the basis of your personal dislike of me.
More delusions.
How do you know that I held my tongue? Did you just visualize it in
your mind and lo, to your rheumy eyes it appeared?
> Nurse your wounds with more dignity Satyr, you have nothing of
> importance to offer.
Coming from you, that's quite a compliment. And so delightfully
ironic, too.
>> Visualization can play a part in meditation, but to say that it's
>> more important puts unnatural and rather naive limitations on the
>> practice. One could meditate on a physical object and no
>> visualization would be required, or one might meditate on an idea
>> or particular sound or word, and in some advanced practices, even
>> no object at all.
>>
>> As for ritual, yes, visualization is somewhat important, I suppose,
>
> You supoose? well if you knew anything at all you would understand
> that visualisation is probably the most important part of ritual.
> Ifear you do on this occasion look even more stupid than you
> normally do.
I imagine you fear all manner of things, but not that, surely.
In your particular case, I should think visualization is of immense
importance, since none of your turbid occult fantasies have any
discernible basis in reality. A vivid imagination is about all you
have going for you.
>> but the trick is to be able to do it with your eyes open. With
>> closed eyes, whether in meditation or in ritual, the mind is much
>> more liable to wander off.
>
> The trick is to do it in your mind not your eyes. When done properly
> in the mind, the eyes see what is imagined. Try to get it right
> before spouting off...
Good thing for you, eh? All your magic is easily effected right there
from the squalid comfort of your lounge, without once having to heave
your prodigious bulk out of that armchair.
And, as I predicted, you show not the slightest sign of knowing the
first thing about meditation.
I remember now why I stopped bashing away at you like this. You make
it so very easy. There's just no sport in it.
Satyr
I think you've left out hypnotherapist, haven't you?
Apotheosis
No, he didnt say he was God Almighty, that is apparently what you think.
> Archie says lots of things like that.
Does he? What has he said like that? references now...
A
Apotheosis
Why do you eat them Tommy? Or do you now deny saying you have eaten spirits?
A 'metaphor' perhaps? Or a delusion?
A
Apotheosis
>
> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
> news:128aq2l...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:TN7hg.46630$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
>>> news:1287qg4...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> This is certainly true, although sound is important 'By sounds and
>>>> images are all powers awakened and re-awakened' (GD Neophyte Ritual).
>>>
>>> The correct quote is actually "for by Names and Images are all Powers
>>> awakened and re-awakened".
>>
>> And we do what with the names? It wouldn't be make sounds would it?
>
> Sometimes. Not always. They can be drawn using kameas, inscribed on
> pentacles, visualized, and operated upon by gematria, temurah, and
> notariqon, just to name a few other things one can do with Names.
>
> I've never seen someone as immersed in fantasy as you are display such an
> impoverished imagination as you do.
Well, you will have to forgive me for being a traditionalist. Names are
vibrated, which causes a sound. Of course the other stuff you know about
is - well, inventve...
>> Nevertheless I accept the correction to my misremembered quote.
>
> You have never, in all your time in alt.magick, quoted any literary source
> accurately. Not even once. This is just another in your long list of
> scholastic blunders.
Scholastic? This from someone who quoted from the Key of Solomon without
acknowledgement, this very day. And got caught at it.
Actually I have made several accurate quotes which you have chosen not to
recall. Doubtless because they all refuted something stupid that you said
and of course you prefer not to remember those don't you? It seems your
idea of what is 'scholastic' is a little bendy.
Still, you continue on the hope that if you quote what other people think
(preferably without acknowledgement), people will think you actually know
something. You have been playing that game for years. With mixed success.
A
Apache Pax
bb wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I don't know what the elements are. Okay, I can name them: Earth, Air, Fire,
> Water and Spirt. I can guess they represent something pyscological, that makes
> up the human mind, but I don't know what they *are*. This is probably really
> basic, but can someone please explain?
>
>
>
> It's bad luck to be superstitious.
Hey bb,
Thats a very good question, and one I was just accidently musing on
last night:-)
When you think about the human body and what is required to either make
it live or die or keep it in balance then I think you see the elements
manifest in yourself. If you are too hot or too cold you die - you
need a balance of heat within the body (fire).
In the LBPR Michael is visualised in flashing red and green (the
opposite colour on the colour scale) so you have the idea of a balanced
manifestation there as represented by his colours.
If you are too dehydrated or you drink too much water you can die, and
the body needs a balance of water within it.
If you cannot breath air you die, and if you had too much (although at
the moment I can't think of how that would happen) you'd also die. A
body needs a balance of air.
As for earth...well, earth is the vehicle where the other elements
combine, and if you lob the wheels off the cart or overburden it, it
doesn't go anywhere:-)
This may sound a bit scruffy but I nicked my husbands bath after him
last night to relax, and as a was drifting around the tub and tuning
into the water, I noticed the water seemed to have stored up all sorts
of information about him. The water had retained a sort of pattern
from him. Now - I don't suppose you can have a conversation with
water, but I swear that water was almost chatty! Not like words or
pictures, but...*ponders* there's a lot of information in a pattern, if
you know what I mean. It's a bit hard to explain. Sorry. :-)
Apache Pax.
Erwin Hessle
So you admit you used the 0=0 ritual then?
So much for me not knowing about your 'reputable organizaton' then.
Now, given your admission above, maybe you can step up to the
challenged with which you have been "tried" and "prove" yourself -
which you have clearly stated in another post you are prepared to do -
and explain how you think such an initiation occurs, what it's nature
is, and what effects it has.
Or will you instead admit that you don't know? Will you face the trial
you so stupidly claimed you would, or will you instead admit defeat?
Your call, bigtimer.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:51:02 +0700, Apotheosis wrote:
> > Strange then that this fuckwit understands more about Magic than
> > Satyr is it not?
>
> Were it true, indeed it would be astonishing. So you agree that you
> are a fuckwit, then?
He's been coming out with more rare glimmers of truth like this lately.
It's because he's starting to break, as I said. His ability to continue
to delude himself is crumbling. We can expect more of this in the days
to come.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> > Fuckwit admits he only reads about magick.
> >
> > Erwin Hessle, 8=3
> >
>
> There you go again, spouting before thinking. Fuckwit says that reading is
> important. You disagree but that is unsurprising.
This is the second time you have admitted that you are a fuckwit today.
You are coming apart more rapidly than even I anticipated.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Satyr
So I've noticed. Even his typing is growing increasingly erratic.
Good run of posts, by the way. I thought your "Khabs is in the Khu"
peculiarly fine. Took the liberty of forwarding it to some friends and
heard back that they are actually enjoying alt.magick. Strange days.
Tom
>
>
> Strange then that this fuckwit understands more about Magic than Satyr is
> it not?
So you claim, but there isn't any evidence to support that, either.
> The trick is to do it in your mind not your eyes.
There you go. Just imagine it and then believe whatever you imagine. Who
needs evidence? It's not like any of your 'magic" is actually real. You
just "do it in your mind".
> When done properly in the mind, the eyes see what is imagined.
"I don't see, I sense." That's what you told me. So I guess you don't do
it properly.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:svSdnZhPuO39OBjZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
>> news:128apuj...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> Tom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything is made of elements. Ain't'cha studied Plato?
>>>
>>> Demons are mnade of elements?
>>
>> Didn;t you just read what I wrote? *Everything* is made of elements.
>> Read Plato.
>>
>> Even after I tell you what an element is, you still don't get it. It's
>> like you're not paying any attention to the world around you at all, what
>> with being so completely preoccupied with the fantastic crap floating
>> around inside your head.
>>
>>> hahahahahahahaha. Is that why you eat them Tommy?
>>
>> No, my foolish friend, it's not.
>
> Why do you eat them Tommy?
It's one of those things you can't understand without the prerequisite
experience. Sorry, Archie. You'll never figure it out. Every conclusion
you draw about it will continue to be as wrong as always.
Tom
>> impoverished imagination as you do.
>
> Well, you will have to forgive me for being a traditionalist.
Being a witless, unimaginative, and fantasy-prone prat is not the same as
being a "traditionalist".
For one thing, a "traditionalist" has a strong sense of the history of his
field, yet you admit that you are so ignorant of the history of cermonial
magic that you are unfamiliar with even the most widely known classic texts
on the subject.
> Names are vibrated, which causes a sound.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no.
>>> Nevertheless I accept the correction to my misremembered quote.
>>
>> You have never, in all your time in alt.magick, quoted any literary
>> source accurately. Not even once. This is just another in your long list
>> of scholastic blunders.
>
> Scholastic?
Another unfamiliar term, I see.
> Actually I have made several accurate quotes which you have chosen not to
> recall.
Not one. Not a single one.
Gavriel
> "Gavriel" <ayrk...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4y4hg.17543$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> Erwin Hessle wrote:
>>> Nechesh wrote:
>>>> And again, when in knowledge and conversation, my own experience is
>>>> very different from an airy discourse. For me, there is no verbal
>>>> dialogue. We don't have a chat, despite it being called 'conversation'.
>>>> It is visual and energetic and it sometimes includes words, but, for me
>>>> at least, the element of air is just one part of what is going on.
>>>>
>>>> Magick is surely about the blending of all 4 elements. It is our
>>>> mastery and manipulation of spirit - the catalyst which governs how the
>>>> 4 elements interract - which determines the efficacy of a given
>>>> magickal working.
>>> If fire is will, and water is love (these are almost the same thing -
>>> the will 'moves' in order to unite, and love pulls the will in a
>>> particular direction) then these depend on the nature of the individual
>>> and its place in the environment. As a completely trivial example, fire
>>> (physical fire, this time) requires a heat source, fuel and oxygen to
>>> burn. In the presence of sufficient heat and oxygen, it will be the
>>> 'will' of gasoline to burn, but take away either of those two factors
>>> and this will no longer be its will.
>>>
>>> It is obviously difficult to reduce human will down to chemical
>>> reactions like this, but the principle remains. In very simplistic
>>> terms, at any given time the desire to unite (experience) will attract
>>> the will into moving towards the object of that desire. However with
>>> humans the complexity of this desire cannot be satisfied through
>>> physical reaction alone; instead it is the place of the conscious mind
>>> to direct the process to fulfilment. We can of course take the view
>>> that the conscious mind is nothing but a complex set of physical
>>> reactions, but the fact is we experience consciousness and free will,
>>> so that view does not help us here.
>>>
>>> Thus, the purpose of the conscious mind (air) is to coordinate the
>>> process of the will (fire) moving the individual towards its object of
>>> desire (water), whatever that may be. As mentioned earlier, here fire
>>> and water depend solely on the conjunction of the nature of the
>>> individual and his position in the environment, i.e. on his true will.
>>> In other words, they are fixed. But, being complex as that is, the
>>> function of air is to determine precisely what it is that he should be
>>> doing, and to come up with a plan for doing it.
>> Sefer Yetsirah 3:4 (GRA Version)
>> "Three Mothers, AM"Sh,
>> in the Universe are air, water, fire.
>> Heaven was created from fire
>> Earth was created from water
>> And air from Breath decides between them."
>>
>> ***Thanks, Erwin. This was a very interesting read.
>
> Interesting but stupid and ill-informed.
>
> Do not place reliance upon it, read reputable sources instead, there are
> lots of them.
***Define 'reputable,' please.
--
==
B'shalom,
Casey Sheldon
"The animal that coils in a circle is the serpent; that's why so many
cults and myths of the serpent exist, because it's hard to represent the
return of the sun by the coiling of a hippopotamus."
- Foucault's Pendulum, by Umberto Eco
Erwin Hessle
> Good run of posts, by the way. I thought your "Khabs is in the Khu"
> peculiarly fine.
To maintain a false self-image - especially one as ridiculous and
blatently insane as this twat's - it is necessary to wilfully ignore
reality. The best way to remedy this is to get hit in the face with
simple facts that, whilst capable of being denied in public, cannot be
kept out the brain. These ideas are burrowing into his head and
breaking down his self-image, resulting in the breakdown we are
starting to witness here.
Maybe he's beginning to understand what initiation really is.
> Took the liberty of forwarding it to some friends and
> heard back that they are actually enjoying alt.magick. Strange days.
This is what I always say to people. All this "can't we all just get
along" shit is a waste of time. The good stuff always comes out of the
trouncings.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Asiya
> Apotheosis wrote:
>>
>> Try not to be more stupid than the Good God made you. I was initiated
>> in the
>> 1970's. The last time I saw a 0=0 performed is when I performed it in
>> 1989.
>> 17 years ago.
>
> So you admit you used the 0=0 ritual then?
>
> So much for me not knowing about your 'reputable organizaton' then.
>
> Now, given your admission above, maybe you can step up to the
> challenged with which you have been "tried" and "prove" yourself -
> which you have clearly stated in another post you are prepared to do -
> and explain how you think such an initiation occurs, what it's nature
> is, and what effects it has.
>
> Or will you instead admit that you don't know? Will you face the trial
> you so stupidly claimed you would, or will you instead admit defeat?
He's done this more times than I can count. He offers to explain or
define something, or offers to answer questions, then weasels out of it
because the questions, with his lack of knowledge, are too difficult for
him for him to fake a plausible response.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
Asiya
> "Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:TN7hg.46630$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>> "Nechesh" <Nec...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1149461080.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Furthermore, when maintaining fixed thought, whether in ritual or
>>>> meditation, visualisation is usually more important than
>>>> verbalisation.
>>>
>>> This is certainly true, although sound is important 'By sounds and
>>> images are all powers awakened and re-awakened' (GD Neophyte
>>> Ritual).
>>
>> The correct quote is actually "for by Names and Images are all Powers
>> awakened and re-awakened".
>
That's one application out of many, yes.
Asiya
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3q2dnV9Lo_cPOhjZ...@comcast.com...
>> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
>> news:128aq2l...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:TN7hg.46630$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:1287qg4...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> This is certainly true, although sound is important 'By sounds and
>>>>> images are all powers awakened and re-awakened' (GD Neophyte
>>>>> Ritual).
>>>>
>>>> The correct quote is actually "for by Names and Images are all
>>>> Powers awakened and re-awakened".
>>>
>>> And we do what with the names? It wouldn't be make sounds would it?
>>
>> Sometimes. Not always. They can be drawn using kameas, inscribed on
>> pentacles, visualized, and operated upon by gematria, temurah, and
>> notariqon, just to name a few other things one can do with Names.
>>
>> I've never seen someone as immersed in fantasy as you are display
>> such an impoverished imagination as you do.
>
> Well, you will have to forgive me for being a traditionalist. Names
> are vibrated, which causes a sound. Of course the other stuff you know
> about is - well, inventve...
Is the Golden Dawn not "traditionalist"? Isn't that the tradition in
which you claim you were initiated?
Chade
Asiya wrote:
> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
> news:128aq2l...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
>
> That's one application out of many, yes.
How does one pronounce 'Asiya'?
C.
Apotheosis
Aw Tommy. The old 'you cannot understand what I say, not because it is
complete bollocks, but because I am so much cleverer than you' ploy.
Riiight.
A
Apotheosis
"Satyr" <saty...@NoPressedPighotmail.com> wrote in message
corerct, he did. Which reminds me, I have a client right after my advanced
math class today.
A
>
Apotheosis
>
> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
> news:128bc12...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:3q2dnV9Lo_cPOhjZ...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> I've never seen someone as immersed in fantasy as you are display such
>>> an impoverished imagination as you do.
>>
>> Well, you will have to forgive me for being a traditionalist.
>
> Being a witless, unimaginative, and fantasy-prone prat is not the same as
> being a "traditionalist".
>
> For one thing, a "traditionalist" has a strong sense of the history of his
> field, yet you admit that you are so ignorant of the history of cermonial
> magic that you are unfamiliar with even the most widely known classic
> texts on the subject.
really? How do you demonstrate this? it is just that most serious occultists
view the grimoires as litarary curiosities not as serious works on Magic. Or
do you believe the Claviculae were actually written by King Solomon? Sounds
to me like you quoted from a discredited work because you dont know it has
been discredited.
>
>> Names are vibrated, which causes a sound.
>
> Sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Always, at some level or other. Good work though Tommy - vibrating withiut
causing a vibration. Very inventive.
>
>>>> Nevertheless I accept the correction to my misremembered quote.
>>>
>>> You have never, in all your time in alt.magick, quoted any literary
>>> source accurately. Not even once. This is just another in your long
>>> list of scholastic blunders.
>>
>> Scholastic?
>
> Another unfamiliar term, I see.
>
>> Actually I have made several accurate quotes which you have chosen not to
>> recall.
>
> Not one. Not a single one.
How about the business of Regardie on the matter on evocation? Dont
remember? OK Or the matter of the Association of sacrifice with Tipahreth?
Dont remember? OK. or the natire of the Magical Oath? Dont remember? OK
memory getting a bit fragile Tommy?
A
>
>
Apotheosis
"Satyr" <saty...@NoPressedPighotmail.com> wrote in message
Pu it to the test. Any subject on Western Occultism. The day I cannot kick
your ass in a debate has not yet dawned and it will not dawn until you learn
a bit more...
> How do you know that I held my tongue? Did you just visualize it in
> your mind and lo, to your rheumy eyes it appeared?
You said nothing. That is a sure sign of you 'holding your toungue'.
>> Nurse your wounds with more dignity Satyr, you have nothing of
>> importance to offer.
>
> Coming from you, that's quite a compliment. And so delightfully
> ironic, too.
With the considerable added bonus of being true.
>>> Visualization can play a part in meditation, but to say that it's
>>> more important puts unnatural and rather naive limitations on the
>>> practice. One could meditate on a physical object and no
>>> visualization would be required, or one might meditate on an idea
>>> or particular sound or word, and in some advanced practices, even
>>> no object at all.
>>>
>>> As for ritual, yes, visualization is somewhat important, I suppose,
>>
>> You supoose? well if you knew anything at all you would understand
>> that visualisation is probably the most important part of ritual.
>> Ifear you do on this occasion look even more stupid than you
>> normally do.
>
> I imagine you fear all manner of things, but not that, surely.
So I am wrong? Or are you diverting away from this point which you cannot
win?
> In your particular case, I should think visualization is of immense
> importance, since none of your turbid occult fantasies have any
> discernible basis in reality. A vivid imagination is about all you
> have going for you.
Another diversion. Understandably given the shaky ground you are on.
>>> but the trick is to be able to do it with your eyes open. With
>>> closed eyes, whether in meditation or in ritual, the mind is much
>>> more liable to wander off.
>>
>> The trick is to do it in your mind not your eyes. When done properly
>> in the mind, the eyes see what is imagined. Try to get it right
>> before spouting off...
>
> Good thing for you, eh? All your magic is easily effected right there
> from the squalid comfort of your lounge, without once having to heave
> your prodigious bulk out of that armchair.
Yet another diversion. Understandably given the shaky ground you are on.
> I remember now why I stopped bashing away at you like this. You make
> it so very easy. There's just no sport in it.
Decoded: I dont argue with you because I get the shit beat out of me but I
can't say that so I will pretend I keep winning.
LOL. You aren't improving with ages son. Just as stupid now as you were.
A
Chade
>
> corerct, he did. Which reminds me, I have a client right after my advanced
> math class today.
Having lived in England all my life I've spoken with people from all
parts of Britian. I can't recall a single instance when I've heard
someone that is British, rather than a tourist or adult immigrant, use
the term 'Math' rather than the British abrevation 'Maths'. Even the
written abrevation all through my education was 'Maths'.
C.
Apotheosis
> Satyr wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:51:02 +0700, Apotheosis wrote:
>> > Strange then that this fuckwit understands more about Magic than
>> > Satyr is it not?
>>
>> Were it true, indeed it would be astonishing. So you agree that you
I accept that is the label you and the equally stupid Satyr choose to call
me by. It is only words and words from either one of you dont really add up
to very much.
A
Apotheosis
Correct. Among others. A huge leap in deduction. Considering my previous
statement...
>
> So much for me not knowing about your 'reputable organizaton' then.
>
> Now, given your admission above, maybe you can step up to the
> challenged with which you have been "tried" and "prove" yourself -
> which you have clearly stated in another post you are prepared to do -
> and explain how you think such an initiation occurs, what it's nature
> is, and what effects it has.
I already told you. Not my fault if you didnt understand. Would you like me
to repeat it or will you just be happy if I post something from Regardie
which supports my position exactly. It shut Tom up when I posted it, perhaps
it will work with you too, you seem about on a level with him.
A
>
> Or will you instead admit that you don't know? Will you face the trial
> you so stupidly claimed you would, or will you instead admit defeat?
Nope.
> Your call, bigtimer.
Called.
A
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>
Apotheosis
"Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
If I say I will explain something I always do. Never mind 'more time than
you can count', name *one* example where I have not.
A
Apotheosis
"Satyr" <saty...@NoPressedPighotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.06....@NoPressedPighotmail.com...
Actually it was particularly naive and full of errors. Still, you have to
start somewhere so I imagine it was as good a place as any.
A
>
Apotheosis
>
> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
> news:128b5ip...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>> Strange then that this fuckwit understands more about Magic than Satyr is
>> it not?
>
> So you claim, but there isn't any evidence to support that, either.
>
>> The trick is to do it in your mind not your eyes.
>
> There you go. Just imagine it and then believe whatever you imagine. Who
> needs evidence? It's not like any of your 'magic" is actually real. You
> just "do it in your mind".
Have you actually read anything at all on the subject? It is just that I
have difficulty believeing your knowledge is as low as it appears to be.
A
>> When done properly in the mind, the eyes see what is imagined.
>
> "I don't see, I sense." That's what you told me. So I guess you don't do
> it properly.
Silly boy. repeat 100 times '8=3's must not quote things out of context' I
sense auras, I see visualisations. All clear now you hopeless nincompoop?
A
Apotheosis
"Gavriel" <ayrk...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Any of the major authors before the age when it became cheap to produce
crap. Butler, Fortune, Mathers, Regardie (especially), Gilbert Wilby...
A
Apotheosis
"Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
yes and yes. In that order.
A
Apotheosis
"Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
Thankyou.
A
Apotheosis
"Chade" <ch...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1149679874.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
And you therefore conclude what?
A
Gavriel
***Wrong trad. You might look into Daniel C. Matt's Zohar, as it's a
much better version than Mathers'.
Apotheosis
"Gavriel" <ayrk...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
I have not seen that. Does it contain a treatise on the elements?
A
Gavriel
***Nope. It's based on a critical text, and has much better annotation.
Apotheosis
"Gavriel" <ayrk...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Better than what? Kabbalah Denudata?
A
Gavriel
***Kabbalah Unveiled, yes. It's a direct translation, instead of a
translation of the Latin Kabbalah Denudata.
Apotheosis
"Gavriel" <ayrk...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
I would be interested in that, is it available for purchase or in e-book?
A
Gavriel
***The first volume is here:
or the direct link:
You can also get the Aramaic text online (along with excerpts, etc...)
for free here:
Satyr
> Satyr wrote:
>> Good run of posts, by the way. I thought your "Khabs is in the Khu"
>> peculiarly fine.
>
> To maintain a false self-image - especially one as ridiculous and
> blatently insane as this twat's - it is necessary to wilfully ignore
> reality. The best way to remedy this is to get hit in the face with
> simple facts that, whilst capable of being denied in public, cannot
> be kept out the brain. These ideas are burrowing into his head and
> breaking down his self-image, resulting in the breakdown we are
> starting to witness here.
>
> Maybe he's beginning to understand what initiation really is.
Possibly. He has a remarkably entrenched persona, for lack of a better
word. These recent breaks are the first signs of change I've seen in
him since he flapped through the door. He might be so hide-bound
there's just no hope for him. We shall see.
>> Took the liberty of forwarding it to some friends and heard back
>> that they are actually enjoying alt.magick. Strange days.
>
> This is what I always say to people. All this "can't we all just get
> along" shit is a waste of time. The good stuff always comes out of
> the trouncings.
For my part, I have learned more in the middle of a piss fight than
from any half-dozen reasoned discussions. The passion can inspire
brilliant rhetoric and prose, but the most important lessons have been
about me, what gets under my skin, or rather, what I allow under my
skin and am unable to deal with effectively. Anything that encourages
that sort of self-examination is always useful.
You learn a lot about just how "enlightened" various claimants are
too, what their vaunted magical accomplishments have actually done for
them. Funny as hell - and sad too, in a way - to see some alleged
high-flier go into full, babbling meltdown.
Apotheosis
"Gavriel" <ayrk...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Cheers, I sold my Sperling edition a few years ago.
A
Apotheosis
"Satyr" <saty...@NoPressedPighotmail.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:02:13 -0700, Erwin Hessle wrote:
>
>> Satyr wrote:
>>> Good run of posts, by the way. I thought your "Khabs is in the Khu"
>>> peculiarly fine.
>>
>> To maintain a false self-image - especially one as ridiculous and
>> blatently insane as this twat's - it is necessary to wilfully ignore
>> reality. The best way to remedy this is to get hit in the face with
>> simple facts that, whilst capable of being denied in public, cannot
>> be kept out the brain. These ideas are burrowing into his head and
>> breaking down his self-image, resulting in the breakdown we are
>> starting to witness here.
>>
>> Maybe he's beginning to understand what initiation really is.
>
> Possibly. He has a remarkably entrenched persona, for lack of a better
> word. These recent breaks are the first signs of change I've seen in
> him since he flapped through the door. He might be so hide-bound
> there's just no hope for him. We shall see.
You are right. he is exactly that.
>>> Took the liberty of forwarding it to some friends and heard back
>>> that they are actually enjoying alt.magick. Strange days.
>>
>> This is what I always say to people. All this "can't we all just get
>> along" shit is a waste of time. The good stuff always comes out of
>> the trouncings.
We shall see whether the trouncing is being received or being given shall
we?
> For my part, I have learned more in the middle of a piss fight than
> from any half-dozen reasoned discussions.
I have no trouble at all in believing you get in a lot of piss fights.
The passion can inspire
> brilliant rhetoric and prose, but the most important lessons have been
> about me, what gets under my skin, or rather, what I allow under my
> skin
This implies a non-existent self-control.
> and am unable to deal with effectively. Anything that encourages
> that sort of self-examination is always useful.
>
> You learn a lot about just how "enlightened" various claimants are
> too, what their vaunted magical accomplishments have actually done for
> them. Funny as hell - and sad too, in a way - to see some alleged
> high-flier go into full, babbling meltdown.
>
Meltdown? OK if you say so.
hey! you are pretty good at the wishful thinking thing... you a druid too
are you?
A
Chade
You've gone native.
Tom
And then he's going to walk on water, which is quite feat for a person who
weighs as much as he does.
Tom
>
> Aw Tommy. The old 'you cannot understand what I say, not because it is
> complete bollocks, but because I am so much cleverer than you' ploy.
>
> Riiight.
One you tend to use whenever you're challenged to explain whatever it is
you've been pontificating abut lately.
Troll.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:17-dnThWts3kZxjZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Apotheosis" <whyno...@itcouldnthurt.org> wrote in message
>> news:128bc12...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:3q2dnV9Lo_cPOhjZ...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen someone as immersed in fantasy as you are display such
>>>> an impoverished imagination as you do.
>>>
>>> Well, you will have to forgive me for being a traditionalist.
>>
>> Being a witless, unimaginative, and fantasy-prone prat is not the same as
>> being a "traditionalist".
>>
>> For one thing, a "traditionalist" has a strong sense of the history of
>> his field, yet you admit that you are so ignorant of the history of
>> cermonial magic that you are unfamiliar with even the most widely known
>> classic texts on the subject.
>
> really? How do you demonstrate this?
Your admitted complete ignorance of one of the most widely known medieval
grimoires, for one.
> it is just that most serious occultists view the grimoires as litarary
> curiosities not as serious works on Magic.
"Serious occultist" as in "serious illness".
"Litarary". Heh.
>>> Names are vibrated, which causes a sound.
>>
>> Sometimes yes and sometimes no.
>
> Always, at some level or other.
Anything is anything "atr some level or another". Weak, Archie. Very, very
weak.
You *are* coming apart, just as Erwin has observed. Not thet you were ever
very together, though.
> Good work though Tommy - vibrating withiut causing a vibration. Very
> inventive.
Pretending that any vibration is "sound" isn't inventive. It's stupid.
>>> Actually I have made several accurate quotes which you have chosen not
>>> to recall.
>>
>> Not one. Not a single one.
>
> How about the business of Regardie on the matter on evocation?
You didn't quote him.
> OK Or the matter of the Association of sacrifice with Tipahreth?
Who did you quote there?
> OK. or the natire of the Magical Oath? Dont remember?
Nope. I never seem to remember what didn't happen.
You do that a lot, though. Remember all your talk about that "British
Medical Council"? Or would you rather forget that, too?
Tom
Drop the "t". He's gone naive.
Tom
>
>
> If I say I will explain something I always lie.
Yep.