I'm just kind of skimming through this topic line, so forgive me if I point out the obvious or repeat other peoples points. Much of the argument for Gardner having "invented" Wicca is based on the popular misconceptions that a) no works on Wicca or Witchcraft as a contemporary practice predate his, and b) all modern practice derives from his work. The works of Leyland and Lethbridge summarily dismiss a). b) is a little tougher to doccument, but there are a number of traditional survivalist strains of Witchcraft in North America which refute it. These people practice traditions clearly recognisable as the same general concept exposed by Gardner, but can be shown to have been doing for four or more generations. Some of these "survivalists" I have met have fairly recent European ancestry, and have preserved a Craft which may well have been practiced in paralell with the New Forest Coven that Gardner was initiated by. Others maintain an older tradition that dates back to ancestors who arrived in the 1500s to 1700s. Janet and Stuart Farrar have doccumented at least the existence of Dorothy Clutterbuck and George Pickingill. It would be foolish to imagine that Gerald Gardner was the only initiate of the coven or covens these two were involved in, or to pretend that all other practice suddenly died out with Gardner's publication, and have not passed on that tradition which he learned to new generations of Witches. While Gardner is often criticised for the incorporation of Judeic High Magickal elements in his published work, and while this incorporation is often madeningly cited as proof of his supposed fabrication by certain practitioners of non-Wiccan magic, I believe that he may not hold sole blame for the adulteration of the old Celtic traditions. Although the Craft was generally a non-literate practice even in recent centuries, it could easily have felt the inflence from those practicing and studying Cabbalism long before it's late revival. That these elements appear in most of those non-Gardnerian surviving traditions which practice the craft as an organised body of lore, and not merely an assemblage of traditions, superstitions, and practical recipies argues that Gardner may have merely strengthened the existing vein of High Macick in an attempt to flesh out the tradition he was codifying. Little of the traditions that have survived outside of the Gardnerian revival of neo-Pagan Wicca has been published, and almost none of it has passed into the modern porular practice. The people who preserve these traditions also preserve a reticence and a reluctance to profane their very private lore. However, some of these people have been attracted to the recent proliferation of Pagan festivals, and have begun to network among the various different pockets of survival. Out of this newly created solidarity, we may indeed see some of the real story of the Craft as it preceded Gardner. ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes: > I would want to see what correspondences Amanda sees as having been more > before the Gregorian reform. I think she is incorrect in that part of her > statement. Also, I am trying to assemble a list of the Church days in > relationahip to the Quarters and Cross-quarters, so additions to the > following would be appreciated. Here's what they are as I understand them: Yule / Christmas (Saturnalia) Double Mass of the First Class with a Privileged Octave Imbolc / Candlemas (Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Double Mass of the Second Class Eostar / Feast of St. Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary Double Mass of the First Class (Note: Easter took its name from Eostar, but the date is rather variable, being figured relative to the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox, not the equinox itself) Beltane / Rudemas (St. Joseph the Workman, Spouse of the B.V.M.) Double Mass of the First Class Midsummer / The Nativity of St. John The Baptist Double Mass of the First Class Lughnasa / Lammas (The Transfiguration) Double Mass of the Second Class Mabon / Michaelmas (St. Michael the Archangel) Double Mass of the First Class Samhain / All Souls' Day (Commemoration of All Faithful Departed) Triple Mass The dates of several of these changed at the Calendar changeover (and some people even still celebrate "Old Christmas," etc.). According to current usage, quarter days are about 4-5 days late, and the cross quarters are about 4-5 days early. I remember being told (though I cannot now remember by whom--it was many years ago) that these discrepancies were due to the calendar changeover, although upon looking at it I admit I fail to see the logic there :). The correspodences still stand, however. "I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. ... If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man." --Henry David Thoreau BD> One additional point on this whole issue: BD> The Celtic countries did not celebrate on the Solstices BD> and Equinoxes. The BD> Germanic countries did not celebrate the Cross-quarters. So the cover-ups BD> would have been done in different lands. Where'd you hear this? Not much was written from the Celts til after the "big switch" to christianity - when it was melded with Irish traditions. There isn't much archaeological evidence of Celts in pre-christian Ireland either, which makes it doubly difficult. The Romans also had a huge effect on the Celts. Evidence shows they invoked the Roman deities right alongside the old Celtic gods and goddesses. There is little to no evidence that the Celts built ritual structures in Pre-Roman period. So basicly, we have no evidence to say either way in regards to the Celts celebrating specific holidays. We know they changed greatly throughout their history, and continuously throughout their written history. In article <1992Jan3.085224.8016@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > - I've read a fair amount of Aleister Crowley's writings, and while in > general I find him brilliant (though generally rather murkily so :)), > there are a couple of aspects of his treatment of sex magick which > nag at me. Now, maybe I just don't have my Beast 666 Secret Decoder > Ring set right :), but it seems to me that his framework does not > allow for the possibility of women being mages on the same footing as > men. Either that or he found the female analogues of some of his > operations to be too strongly charged to write about at all, however > opaquely. Has anyone else gotten this impression? This is essentially correct. Crowley was phallically centered and saw the wand as the basic tool of magic. The cup is more a passive instrument of mysticism. While the IX elixir does partake equally of the natures of both partners, and is in itself male-female rather than male, it only takes an examination of the Gnostic Mass (a symbolic form of the IX, just as the Gardnerian circle ritual is a symbolic form of their III, which is the O.T.O. IX) to see that the priestess's role is a passive one and that the priest is the lead player. Here I'm referring to the form of the Mass as well as the note at the end that "Certain secret formulae of the Mass are taught to the Priest in his ordination." Note that no mention is made of the Priestess needing such formulae. This is a subject of some debate in the community, though in my opinion, not enough. One counterargument is that the Priestess's psychic channeling role -- by which I mean the gathering and control of the psychic energies liberated in the Mass in silence from the altar -- is in fact as important as the Priest's. I don't buy it, but then, I've never played Priestess. Another is that in practice the Pristess is given control over all external aspects of the Mass, more so than the Priest or the Deacon. In fact, she chooses and can change her mind about the identities of the two other officers, and has the power to decide on any changes that may be made in a particular performance. This is good, but I'm not sure it goes far enough: it doesn't penetrate to the level of the inner formulae. This sort of thing is why Thelemites do _not_ limit themselves to straight Crowleyan sex magick and the formulae of the O.T.O., A.'. A.'., and EGC. The first Mass I attended out here had a female friend of mine playing Priest, for instance. Techniques more commonly associated with the Leather Faeries are used in some private workings, and it is rumored that there are Thelemic subcultures performing new kinds of lunar circles which have little direct bearing on the IX and XI formulae as they are commonly understood. In other words, the sexual base of Thelema has broadened considerably since the demise of Uncle Al. >I admit that I'm > not a Thelemite, and look at Crowley's work mainly as valuable > historical background and a creative work in its own right, rather > than as a direct source for magickal working. His gender bias is > part of my reasons for my this. (Yes, I realize that I'm being a > little opaque here myself... :)) Well, my dear friend, you're yet another special case, but I'm sure you could fit in somewhere (or vice versa).... Crowley's sexism is generally recognized, but I would still not define modern Thelema in practice as in any way feminist -- the phallic emphasis continues. I have seen people who should know better respond to perfectly valid feminist concerns raised by neo-Pagan friends with insulting spiels that dismissed feminism as a matter of having pushed certain buttons. I have yet to hear any Thelemite other than myself cite or quote any feminist writer or researcher, except one person who added a few notable pioneers to the list of saints' names in the Mass. This is something that really needs work. Study groups under Lodge auspices would probably be a good starting point. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "'The Devil' is, historically, the God of any people that one personally dislikes." -- Aleister Crowley, MAGICK IN THEORY AND PRACTICE tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: > This is essentially correct. Crowley was phallically centered and saw > the wand as the basic tool of magic. That's been my overall impression :). > "Certain secret formulae of the Mass are taught to the Priest in his > ordination." Note that no mention is made of the Priestess needing > such formulae. There's that, and also his notes about what he thought was the ideal sacrifice (or in other contexts, the ideal element for Eucharist). I may be jumping to conclusions here, though; with no formal Thelemic experience, I have relied on printed materials and not any oral supplemental information. > This sort of thing is why Thelemites do _not_ limit themselves to > straight Crowleyan sex magick and the formulae of the O.T.O., A.'. > A.'., and EGC. [...] In other words, the sexual base of Thelema has > broadened considerably since the demise of Uncle Al. Grin. This is a promising sign, I'd say. His biases aren't a problem for me in and of themselves, but they do nag at me from time to time when reading stuff by him that's otherwise very insightful. They are also what has kept me from any real involvement with Thelema, despite being impressed by a Thelemite housemate I had for a while. He was the one who convinced me to go read Crowley in the first place (and, I must say, seemed to be *very* enthusiastic about sex magick :)...). > Well, my dear friend, you're yet another special case, Chuckle. Well, remember what I said about pigeonholes a couple days ago :). > Crowley's sexism is generally recognized, but I would still not define > modern Thelema in practice as in any way feminist -- the phallic > emphasis continues. Yup. It also seems to be present in collateral material, such as Masonic frameworks, etc. Of course, part of this is probably simply due to the societies that the material developed in and has passed through. Even modern America is still pretty deeply phallically oriented... Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel." --Arabic proverb 9201.04 The following contains the response to a Magick Survey. The Survey consists of 10 questions which were asked largely via computer and responded to anonymously. There were actually 2 different versions of the Survey. The first contained information which was not relevant and that part was omitted from this file. Editing for clarity was minimal. Some answers, if they seemed unintelligible, were omitted entirely. Typos were sometimes corrected, yet most may be considered the work of those who submitted the completed form. Only 3 surveys were not received by computer out of the 35 or so included here. Yours in breathlessness, Tagi. ...................................................BEGIN BEGIN BEGIN BEGIN 1. How would you define the word 'magick'? Anything that brings about a result or produces an effect by means which currently defy normal explanations. Or something like that... - The reduction of properties to simplicity, making them transmutable to utilise them afresh by direction, without capitalization (and ye do no harm...), bearing fruit many times...alternate> the one-pointed focus of mind on That-Which-Is with Intention... - The application of natural laws and the power of will to be produce a specific desired result. - The Fortune/Crowley definitions revolving around the relationship to consciousness, will, and manifestation ring true to me but I would further add that magick is the creation of microcosmic resonances for macrocosmic results. - Magick is, to quote Crowley, the science of understanding oneself and one's conditions and the art of applying that understanding in action. In practical terms, it is the use of rituals and paraphernalia to invoke the internal power of the unconscious mind. - I would define "magick" as the driving force behind a mystery. The mystery that keeps humankind from firmly believing that life, as lived by the average person, is all that there is. For some, magic is best described as an unexplainable feeling, such as deja vu. For others, magic is an unknown force to be tapped and used as they see fit. For a select few magic is an ocean of energy. One may ride with the tides, but not control them. One may swim within the force, being cautious that if they lower their guard, they may drown. - 'Magick' - The art of the magi. That which is not understood by a person. Science is magic. Life is magic. Art is magic. Magic is art. Words woven in intricate patterns, shaped from the void into life and meaning. Love is magic. We are magic. - I suppose I might be sounding a little flippant, and perhaps it's on purpose. But I do think that anything that we don't understand, yet except as being real and/or true, can be called magic. A rock falling to the ground is not magic, but the gravity that causes the event, though we can quantize and qualify the forces involved, can measure and predict the effects, we do not truly understand why. Therefore, a little part of the force of gravity is still magical to us. Enough. - The term coined by A. Crowley not to be confused with your regular, run of the mill magic. The attainment of higher states of consciousness or rapport with your Holy Guardian Angel. - Magick is natural rather than artificial. Magick is wonderous, intense, profound, mysterious and awing rather than boring, dull, shallow, exposed and tedious. I enjoy Crowley's: 'Magick is a Change in conformity with Will.' Magick is not separate. Rather it is a part of every process, every event, every experience, every being, every object which makes up Universe. Yet it is often overlooked. Magick is what makes the complexity of creative philosophical debate worthwhile. It also provides the value in contemplating an empty mind. Magick is a technology that allows us to see into the depths of all things. It is also that which allows us to see past the depths into what is present and perfectly simple. - "Magick" is the conscious shaping of reality in accordance with one's will, using (for lack of a better term) psychic abilities to manipulate probabilities. At least that is my current working definition... - Magick is the adaption of the world around us by the force of will and the judicial application of power drawn from our surroundings. If you are sensitive to the lines of force in the world, and the innate natures of those surroundings, you can learn to use them for the good of others. - Magick is the use of specific combinations of sounds and symbols to focus the will to accomplish activities that can not be accomplished using current state-of-the-art technology. - Magick: that which brings change, be it through belief or the unexplainable. - Mag'ick (maj'ik) n. 1. The arcane, occult, mystic arts, or paranormal 2. Energy controllobale via non- or psuedo-technological means 3. Paranormal phenomena 4. Proficiency to the point of ridiculousness in a given art or science 5. Extremely advanced science or technology 6. Women 7. The unknown and/or awe inspiring. 8. Luck. - Magick is the ability to affect "reality" such as it is. - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke - Magick is a methodology of belief. The Art of Magick lies in demonstrating the practicality of those beliefs. The study of Magick should be an endeavor to more fully understand these beliefs and the powers that shape and are shaped by them, their uses and abuses, their benefits and risks. And incidentally, I prefer the term magic. - Magick : The art of creating reality by conscious direction of energy. - Magick is that which cannot be explained by science. - I would not specifically use the word magick. I would call it mystical power. As to how I would define it, it is the power that flows through all living and nonliving things that binds everything together. - Magick - any action producing a result which cannot be explained scientifically. - Magick is action with the intent to effect a change. - Magic(k) (I don't care about the spelling) is the ability to manipulate natural forces. - Magick is the Cause of change in accordance with the will. - I generally like to use Crowley's definition - "the science and art of causing change in conformity with Will" - Either the Supernatural Bits or "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." Take your pick. - The art of changing reality to conform to the will. - "Magick is doing the right thing, in the right place, at the right time. If you think that is too simple try doing it." - The memoirs of Zeus Maurice Druon - Magick is any of a variety of life-practices which devote the practitioner to self- and (thereby) environment-transformation. Methods and schools of magick vary. We spell it with a 'k' to differentiate from the art of prestidigitation. - Magic(k) is focused energy given form by any combination of a Higher Power and belief and physical effort. - Magick is "the Science and Art of causing change to occur in conformity with the Will." How original, eh? - Magick is the science and art of invoking/evoking the supernatural. ************************************************************************ 2. Are there 'types' of magick? If so, briefly detail. Two sub-types, which are individual and group. Individual uses the energy of one person, whereas a group uses the energy of each member of the group. - Yeah, according to how they're implemented and what they do. I.e. tantric magick, rune magick, candle magick, etc. - Yes. I think there are several but for the main part there are people who attempt, through their will to control the mystical and others that just work with the flow of power. - No. Magickal phenomena may be brought about through different actions by different people, but does not exist in different forms per se. - I don't understand the question, I think you are prsuming a definition of magic that I do not share. One can make all the distinctions one cares to about mode and manners used to effect such changes, but mostly that becomes bean sorting. - Types of magic(k) include White, Grey, Black, Red(Blood). However, you can specialise in a sub set of magic(k) such as divination, scrying, etc... - Yes, candle-magick, spell-magick, sex-magick. It is not what is done, but HOW, that defines the type. - Sure - but I don't think that there's 'good' or 'evil' or 'white' or 'black' magick. Magick is a force, an energy that may be used like any other for whatever ends one desires. There are different 'schools' of magic, using different ways, but the Magick is the same. - There are different "Schools", but within each one the members do different things, so I guess there are as many different types as there are practitioners. - Not really, but there are different methods for reaching your goals. - There are two kinds of people in the world: people who divide people into types and people who don't. I don't. There are types of magick in terms of approaches, pedagogy, whatever. My working assumption is that the Source is the same. These magicks include theomancy, communications theory, semiotics, OTO trad, or any other traditions. It includes any variety of mystical practice I've had contact with. - Yes. Large magic(k)s are like a woven tapestry - many are needed to create the one change and small magic(k)s are like "miracles" and making babies, bread and tears - one or two are all that's needed for those. - Magick being a relatively neutral force of nature, I would say no. However, according to the way this force is applied, it could loosely be categorized into various 'types' merely for the sake of convenience. - No! - *************************************************************************** 3. What does magick have to do with: a. Science Magic is science that hasn't been proven as science yet. Or, magic takes up where science leaves off.... - Science is magick on which there is rational mass mind agreement. - Magick is an intuitive extension into areas of knowledge that science is yet to reach. Science in turn provides insights and paradigms that expand the realm of magic. - Science does not make use of magick (yet), but magick can make use of science. - Science, meaning the method by which mankind defines the forces of nature, is naturally linked with magic. As mankind broadens the boundaries of nature, so too do they expand the realm of magic. - Science is magic, or a form of magick. - Science is a religion of intellectuals, who are constantly changing what they believe to be true. - Discipline is the way of the Sage. So is enjoyment. The fusing of discipline and enjoyment is a Science and an Art. Science is a way of learning about boundaries and barriers. It is important to discover these if one wishes to transcend them. Magick is a means to so transcend them and, as such, relies on the method of Science to establish its foundation. - Magic is one of the names that science has been called. - Magick is the use of principles and practices which, because it cannot be explained through current scientific methodology, is considered, by most scientific authorities, to be fantasy. In reality, these practices are an extension of the basic relationships within the universe. (i.e. magick is the use of scientific principles which have not been generally accepted in today's world). - When magick is understood, it becomes science. - Science is similar to magic in that it is also merely a system of beliefs. The main problem with Science is that the fundamental belief seems to be that there is a rational, logical, practical and scientific answer to every question. Magic is the acceptance of the existence of stuff we do not understand, can never fully comprehend, and can only begin to influence. - According to Clarke, any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magick. At the same time, a study of the history of science reveals that any practice of the occult which has been adequately researched and studied in a rigorous manner, and the underlying "Laws" which govern it have been formulated becomes "science" and those aspects of the occult which have not yet been rigorously researched and their underlying "Laws" discovered, remain "Magick." Or, to put it in another way, "any insufficiently advanced science is also indistinguisable from magick." At this stage in the development of both science and the Craft, it appears to me that science (particularly physics) may be completing a great circle and is approaching magick by the back door! Of course, the traditional dichotomy between "science" and "engineering," also applies to magick - one side wants to discover why magick works, while the other side says if it works, use it! Magick (to use my definition obove) is a method of shaping reality which has not yet reached the status of a Science. It is a tool and, as any tool (from stone hammers on to the most advanced firearms), can be used for positive or negative purposes. And again, as with any tool, it can turn in the hand of the user and injure or kill the user if not used properly (and by "properly," I mean in such a manner as not to injure/kill the user, and without reference to the purpose to which it may be put). At the same time, the study of magick may also be a tool whereby we can strive to achieve an inner clarity of vision and purpose, as target shooting may be a method of achieving this (although the oriental martial arts are more often thought of as being suitable for this). - Not much. Magick Does Not Exist in science. - A lot. Science WAS magick, originally, but lost it's way. - Science is just one explanation of the mystical power. - A very structured formal way to make a change with a whole framework to explain it. - They can help compliment each other. By studying Magick, one often has a better understanding of science. They are both, to a degree, based on trial and error. - Magick *is* a science. Not an exact one, though... - Magick is ahead of Science. - Science will eventually discover magick at its core. - Magick is reverse-engineered science. Like horsemanship, it is a skill that can be acquired by experience, aided by a personal coach, but is hard to acquire from books unless you have some native horse-sense. People who are adept at magick can try to isolate empirical truths about the practice. This is the interface of *empirical* science and magick. On the other hand, science means "knowledge," so I guess magick is just another kind of knowledge. Concensus in the scientific community is that we comply worse than cold fusion. I think we comply as well as about any other art... - Since magick seems to be a natural phenomenon, and science is dedicated to the study of the loosely so called 'known universe', it follows that magick should be, and in some cases is, a branch (more likely a synthesis) of science. - Magick is the science and art of invoking/evoking the supernatural - ************************************************************************ 3. What does magick have to do with: b. Religion Religion is mankind's organized attempt to understand the mystical. The problem in recent history is the severe infusion of guilt and fear of the deep unknown or unconscious side in most the world's religious doctrine. - True religion is reconnection with the forces and the patterns of creation. Magick is a way to work with the Universe and through the working become more connected with spirit. Religion and magick also intertwine in grappling with the events of daily life. - Many religions use various forms of magick, but magick isn't necessarily religious. - Magic and religion are unquestionably linked. There are those, however, who choose only to see religion, blinding themselves to the whole picture. Some experiences can be described as religious and some as magical, though I feel that those experiences often overlap. - Religion is for those who wish to place the power of magic in someone else's hands. - Religion is a wet security blanket, drug-like in its power. - Religion and magick are at once enemies and lovers. They dance and weave between one another. One becomes the other in everlasting delight. One is orthodox on the outside, experimental on the inside; the other is unorthodox on the outside, traditional on the inside. Where religion seeks the joys of the community, magick seeks the joys of the individual. When religion and magick meet, truly there is harmony. - Religion, like magic, is belief in something more powerful than oneself. - Not a whole lot. - Religion is the occult without magick. - Religion is of course also a belief structure, though the term used there is faith. Religion also implies worship. In my mind, magic excludes worship, instead it encourages rejoicing in the gifts of nature and life. Those who seek to combine the two follow a dark and dangerous path. - Religion is a more-or-less formalized expression of mysticism and, while mysticism does not necessarily presuppose the existence of any "supernatural" powers, religion (by its very nature) does. - Religion can espouse Magick, or provide a focus for it. - A fair amount. Magick can be a religion, but few religions are magickal. - Religion is a specific set of actions which attempt to bring about magickal type phenomena (miracles, etc.) - A less stuctured but still formal way to effect changes, explanations tend to be along the lines of "...then a miracle happens..." - Depending upon your definition of magick, many happenings of faith can be defined as magick. Thus, in a way, magick is the basis of many religions. - Religious trappings or settings can aid one in manipulating Magick, but are not necessary. They *do* make it a lot easier. - Religion is a debased form of it. - Religion is magick you believe in, and magick is religion you don't. - Organized religion, at root, is an institutional approach to magick. The same issues are dealt with, but religion is easier to teach, and easier to misunderstand but still have an effect. For instance, I think a lot of ex-catholics will tell you that catholicism had an effect on them. However, it was not the effect intended by the pope, much less Jesus... Religion is often used by a cognizant minority to control a sleepy majority. Now *that's* magick... Personal religion is the fabric of magick. - If the pure idea of religion (i.e. 'a returning, binding together; a going back') is assumed, then magick would seem to be the primary instrument of attaining such an effect. - Nothing. - ************************************************************************ 3. What does magick have to do with: c. Mysticism Isn't mysticism magic for the mind? - Magick is the active vehicle by which the mystical is explored and expressed. - Mysticism seeks consciousness outside of the frame of incarnation. Magick, though it may be a tool to reach this union with the source of things, is often seen as a distraction on the path of mysticism. - Mysticism involves the study of the unconscious mind and what it produces, so mysticism can often help one magickally. - Mysticism makes magic easier to understand or accept. No single being can fully understand or channel all that magic is, so the use of an intermediary force is needed. - Hmmm... Not being a mystic myself, I don't really know. I suppose any means of gaining knowledge would also be a means of gaining more magical powers. Empowerment through enlightenment? - Mysticism is a vacationland that tends to separate men from the boys, so to speak, although mystics as a group tend to look down on the benefits of cable tv, stock portfolios, and comfy caves. - This is the place where religion and magick meet. It is The High Art of the Sage. It is Alchemy of the Scientist. It is The End of the Aspirant. It is Simple Living for the Monk or Nun. For the Mage, it is the completion of the Great Work or Great Rite, the securing of the Holy Grail, the contact with the Holy Guardian Angel, the distilment of the Philosopher's Stone, the turning of lead into Gold, the creation of the Elixir of Immortality. - Mysticism, like magic, is the pursuit of things that cannot be seen with one's eyes, felt with one's hands, smelled, tasted or heard with one's senses. - The only relationship magick has to mysticism, is that certain "mystic" practices are useful in training the novice in the areas of concentration and basic principles of showing natural relationships. - Mysticism is Magick without philosophy. - Mysticism is equated with Magick in layman's terms, but are distant relatives. - mu - Mysticism is another set of actions attempting to bring about magickal type phenomena (raising spirits, etc.) - Unstructured informal ways of attempting to effect changes, the explanation for it being "then something unexplained happens" - Mysticism is just what one who does not understand Magick calls it... - Large overlap. - Mysticism is a means for justifying magickal phenomena within religiousexperience. - Mysticism is a form of magic, albeit a very self-centered one. The mystic achieves a state of mind allowing one access to states which are beyond our senses. But who is to say that is reality for anyone but the mystic? I believe that for magic to be useful, you should be able to affect someone else with it. Mysticism involves an identification of the individual with the divine. Magick involves an indentification of the individual with his environment. To a pantheist, a difference that makes no difference *is* no difference. I'm not limiting myself to a self-identification as a "pantheist," but it's a workable model for this point... - Mysticism is a belief system (or philosophy, if you please) which holds that direct knowledge of the Higher Powers, the ultimate reality, etc., can be gained by intuition, illumination and/or insight. - Mysticism is an approach to magick. It's my approach. My tendency, from a biased point of view, is to map most approaches to magick as being varieties of mysticism. This bugs the hell out of some anti-religious magickal types. *shrug* It's my spin on things. - ************************************************************************* 3. What does magick have to do with: d. Philosophy For Magick to be useful, enlightened, and produce results that won't come back to haunt the practicing mage, a solid philosophical ground work must be laid and adhered to. Those with a lack of integrity to a clear ideal will find themselves in deep trouble when working with powerful energies. - Magick and metaphysics are a part of the science and art of thinking that is philosophy. - Philosophy can be used as a tool to understand humankind, and as one who practices magick must have focus and insight into him/herself, it helps. - Philosophy and magic are closely related. Philosophy is a means to explain ethics, morality, and other questions of self. One may use these definitions in understanding how to channel magic. - The attainment of knowledge leads to greater magical abilities, better understanding. - Philosophy is a mind candy that can give your life debilitating cavities. - The Love of Sophia is magickal in the extreme. Wisdom is the fountainhead of all Truth. Truth the revealer of all experience. Experience the container of all life. Life is what magick is about. Thus connected, Wisdom and magick are two aspects of a many-sided crystal. Philosophy is the appreciation and acceptance of this Wisdom into one's mind and life. - Philosophy is belief in something. Magic is belief in self. - In the classic sense, not a whole lot. - Philosophy is the exploration of life. - The original definition of philosophy is the love of wisdom or knowledge. The term is derived from Latin and Greek words. It seems likely that in that time period, when magic, yes even Magick, flourished, those that sought the truth and reason behind it were called philosophers, and not mages. But this time was also the dawn of scientific reasoning. Who can say why one faded and the other flourished? - Philosophy is both that area of knowledge which is concerned with discovering the nature of reality and of human knowledge and behavior and the principles, disciplines and ethics by which each of us govern our behavior. The philosophy/religion (and I am here including mysticism) that each of us has is the context in which we use magick. I basically follow a "non-denominatinal" Wiccan spiritual path. My ex-wife's path is (at present) a combination of Wicca and Native American shamanism. Both of us believe in both the "Witches' Rede" and the "Law of Threefold Payback." This is the context in which each of us practices magick, and for that manner, the context in which each of us attempts to live our lives. Some people (to use another example) operate in the context that the ends justify the means and, if the ends are important enough to them, any means may be used to obtain them - even if other beings are injured thereby. - A person's philosophy affects how he/she can use Magick. - A bit. The "classic" western philosophers haven't really been influenced, but their influences were probably influenced (which probably makes no sense). - Philosophy is the study of the forces of the universe, which may help to explain the mechanisms of magick. - A structured informal way of effecting changes, with an explanation by a large framework that has at least one incomprehensable aspect. - Hmmmm. . . not much, to my knowledge. - Not a whole lot...one's philosophy can help determine for what ends one uses Magick, but not what it does. - Depends on whether it is "meaningful" philosophy or not. Either the P[hilosophy] is irrelevant or V[ery] similar to M[agick]. - Philosophy is used to assign moral value to magickal acts. - Philosophy is an institutional approach to magick. If you might humor me to think of life as consisting of emotive, intellectual, and kinetic experience (feel, think, do), then philosophy is the think-approach, and religion is the feel-approach, and mysticism is the do-approach. - Philosophy being, in its purest sense, the search for wisdom or knowledge, it would once again appear that magick is the primary means of attaining such an effect. - Magick is a philosophy. - ************************************************************************* 3. What does magick have to do with: e. Nature Magick is the application by which the hidden forces of nature are unlocked and directed. - Nature is all that is and magick works within it. - Many nature-based religions make use of magick. Nature and the Earth are our environment, and there is much power in the earth. - Magic is a force of nature. - Nature is magick. Magick is nature. - Nature is a classroom for the student of life. - Magick and Nature are One everlasting unity. There is no magick without Nature, no Nature without magick. Magick is the dark, dreamy mist which leads one out of slumbers. Nature is the green and blue light which lulls one to sleep. Magick is the shocking recognition of ignorance. Nature is the soothing comfort of knowledge. Magick is the ugly younger Brother, Nature the beauteous older Sister. Together they give birth to Mysticism. - Magic and nature are one. Look around, breathe the air in Spring and you can feel the magic of rebirth. - Magick is the use of natural laws which have not yet been quantified by the scientific community. Primarly related to the use of sound, symbolic diagrams, and the power of the practitioners own will. - Magic and Nature are as intertwined as Nature and Life! What is there on this Earth which is not of nature? Even extraterrestrial objects are part of the nature of the space outside our planet. An acceptance and recognition of magic allows an even greater appreciation and understanding of nature. - "Nature" is the metacontext (so to speak) in which we live, or to borrow from Chairman Mao, it is the ocean in which we fishes swim. The God(s) and Goddess(es) are anthropomorphised personifications of aspects of the Creative Force of the universe ("the Great Spirit that moves through all things," as a friend of mine puts it). - Nature can be a focus in working Magick. It is also a source of energy. - Magick is natural, so it is a part of nature. - This is but one way of seeing the mystical side. - Nature is that which is because no force has caused it to be otherwise. - Nature is where the changes take place. - Magick needs to work in strong accordance with nature. Violating nature's laws is black. - Magick is a part of nature - like the sun, the earth, Man, and all that comes f rom them. - What do you mean ? ( ;) - Nature is the forum for magickal manifestations of the will. - As a might-as-well-say-I'm-a-pantheist, you might say that nature is the ground of being, the ruleset that we are trying to integrate with, with intent. Much as physics considers it's job to disect nature, magick considers it's job to meld into it, so as to not discover the rules, but *be* them. - Nature = magick, magick = nature. - ************************************************************************ 3. What does magick have to do with: f. God/Goddess God is. Magick is the bridge, the method, and the means for aligning and expressing the will of God in this dimension. - Magick that is linked to the telesmatic images (thought-forms, masks, etc.) that humans use to clothe the ineffable beings that are deities tends to work and tends to be karmically sound. As a wiccan I most often worship the Lady and the Horned One. - Goddess or God is often the focal point for religious magick-users. I personally view deities as metaphors--certainly, powerful metaphors-- but I believe one can be an atheist and use magick. - If there is a god/goddess, he/she/it would probably be the ultimate magician, seeing as how he/she/it would have ultimate knowledge and understanding. - God is Something Somewhere Else. - SHe teaches us about magick. SHe shows us the techniques of finding joy, of discipline, and of balance. SHe befriends us in times of trouble, loves us in times of doubt, caresses us when in pain, and waits for us when we are impatient. Magick is the way of interaction with Hir and the Way of penetrating or being penetrated BY Hir, revealing Our essential Oneness. - God is the Supreme force in the universe. Most people believe in a supreme force/being and we all worship the same one no matter what we call him/her. Even Satanists worship a supreme force, though they misguidedly seek the dark and destructive side of it. - Specific sounds, which are represented by the names given by most people to gods or goddesses are those that have been found to provide readily accessable power. - God and magic are separate but similar concepts. It comes down to what an individual accepts as Truth, where proof is superfluous. For either the concept of God or the concept of magic (and they are not mutually exclusive) to be valid for you, you must accept certain things as True, you must Know them, really Gnow them to be True. Until you reach that point, you have only a very limited understanding of the power inside them, and yourself. - To those of us who believe in a Supreme Being, the God(s) and Goddess(es) are foci for our concentration and inspirations around which we develop the context in which we operate. - Again, as nature, God/dess is a focus or source of energy. In some circles God/dess is the expression of "pure Magick" - reality created at a thought. - mu - God/Goddess - a useful mental image which helps to focus thoughts on accomplishing magickal phenomena. - The "entity" which either effects, is affected by, or just watches change. - Being architypal extensions of oneself, the God/Goddess forms are the ones, I think, that actually perform the Magick. - Useful archetypes or energy forms, but not essential. - Goddamn Religioids. - God/Goddess - the holistic view of the divine which is often used. - On one level, a model required by our limited capacity of visualization, to be able to touch the divine. On other levels, a pedantic device to teach about magick/religion/mysticism/philosophy. On some levels unreal, on some levels as real as anything else. I am simultaneously very theistic and completely agnostic. What hat am I wearing today? - Regardless of the interpretation one had for these terms, any explanation would seem to fall under the previous heading of natural - be it psychological or divine, both are perceived through one's reality tunnel, which, since nothing outside of this tunnel can be perceived, our idea of 'natural' is certainly individual. Duality would appear to be a necessary construct of the interaction between the macrocosm and the microcosm. - Most magicians need the gender identification as incentive to practice magick. Yet once everyone gets over that, the God/Goddess concept is not an essential point, especially when leaving the physical plane. - ****************************************************************** 3. What does magick have to do with: g. Life Life is a type of magic. - Magick is a way to express life. - If magick is not a part of every day of one's life one cannot be a mage or a witch. - Magick is a part of life, and anyone can make use of it, although the learning of it is suppressed, and most humans learn to ignore their internal signals. - One's life can be greatly enriched by accepting magic, just as one's life can be ruined by trying to wrongly manipulate magic. - Life is magick. Magick is life. I know I said that before, but can't nature and life be seen as the same thing. Even inanimate objects are a part of life, and we are all made of the same basic elements; water, earth, air, and fire. - Life is living in a storybook. Watch out for the monsters! And remember - the last two words in the storybook are The Beginning. - Life, in its expanded meaning, is omnipresent and unchanging except in form. Magick is the process by which Life becomes Consciousness. Magick is like an arithmetical function which, once applied, states an 'Equal' and churns out a new form of Life. Magick is like a glass of Consciousness into which Life-cubes are thrown. Magick melts the cubes of Life into the liquid of Consciousness. - Life and magic are one. Do you know the difference between life and death??? One breath. What is magic if that is not? - The interrelationships represented by the diagrams used in sorcery, are directly related to the universial life forces present. Each diagram or group of diagrams show these interrelationships and therefore give a finite picture of one aspect of life - that aspect which the sorcerer is attempting to use. - Life is Magick. - Well, life is energy and magic is energy. Many people, including scientists, say that to witness a birth is a miracle, magical. A few may make the observation that it is a perfectly normal, somewhat messy form of procreation, but they are a small minority. So we are born by a miracle, grow up listening to fairy tales, taught not to step on the cracks, given "magic" elixirs and pills to cure our ills, and then we get sent off to "school". There we succumb to the fact that we cannot control the world with magic (the first blow). Next we are forced to accept the "scientific procedure" as the only route to knowledge and understanding (second blow). And then many of us are sent to "Sunday School", where we are taught there is only one true power in the universe, and it ain't us! (third and final blow). For me, the Truth is that while you are alive, there is magic in you. Just as long as there is blood in your veins, thoughts in your mind, and something, anything, in your heart. - Life is the vital force which (literally!) motivates us. Magick can be a context in which we seek to develop our "higher self" and improve our spiritual and material lives. - Magick is an inherent part of life. The more one is separated from it, the less one lives life to its fullest. - It touches everyone in some way. - Life is a thing that exists between time-A (before change) and time-B (after change). - Life is Magickal, N'est pas? - Hm. Sometimes I think that one needs *some* kind of Magick to stay alive, and other times I just think... - Everything. - Through exercise of the will, life is continued, both personally and universally. - My personal mythology puts life as the ripples on top of the ocean of being, temporary manifestations that change constantly, but are always there and spring from the same source. Life is an illusion of Time and vice versa. Life is a way for the perfect to explore imperfection. Life is what you make of it. Life is process, the necessity of change that creates beginnings, middles, and ends of things. An exploratory journey. The only dance there is. A game. 42. - Life is magick, magick is life. Any and every facet of 'life' can be viewed magickly. - ******************************************************************** 3. What does magick have to do with: h. Love I believe this is one of the most powerful emotions and therefore one of the most potent of powers... - Love is the most powerful of all the forces and essential to proper magick. Without it, the mage works by the power of will alone, remains separate from God, life, and the humanity around him; and in that separation lacks the wisdom to properly direct his will. - Love is one of the most powerful of magickal forces. - Love is a powerful force in the world, surely. Magick cannot "get" love, however. - Magic can enhance love, or induce lust. - Love is something that is obviously not understood by anyone. Therefore, to us, it must have some magical quality. :) - Love is the only working gas pedal in the human auto race that does anything of any value. - Love is what gives magick value. Love is an openness, an accepting presence that allows and appreciates. Magick must include Love if it is to succeed. Where Love is absent, magick becomes cruel, heartless and dastardly. In fact, without Love, magick is not magick at all but deception, falsity and hypocrisy. - Love and magic one. Without love, magic is nothing but the fight of the will against the world. You must love yourself and the force of life and power in the universe to truly understand magic. - Ever been in love? - Love is a separate thing from magic, but with many similarities. Of all of the items listed, Love is the most powerful, and can have the greatest influence upon a person. Love and magic are synergistic, the combined effect exceeds the sum of the two. - Love (defined as a feeling which includes affection, caring, and trust for both ourselves and persons/objects external to us) is the context in which we "should" (although I dislike using that term) live and practice magick - "Perfect Love and Perfect Trust," if you will! - Love can be a focus for Magick. A strong one at that. - Magick is like love. It's always there if you know where to look. - Love is a strong emotion which can affect the manifestation of magickal phenomena. - Love is the stated motive for effecting change. - Magick should only be worked with the best of intentions and in perfect Love. - "Love is the Law", and all that. - Everything. - Love is probably the most powerful influence on the exercise of will. - Which kind? I like compassion. I believe in compassion as the driving force of magick. I believe that the Buddhist idea of radical compassion is identical with that which Crowley uses in his rede: Love is the law; love under will. Somehow, I think there is something major that I am missing, because I see many people producing magickal effects with what appears to me to be highly compartmentalized compassion, at best. Probably just me being judgemental. I should have more compassion for them. - "Love is the law, love under will." Love could easily be interchanged for the label 'universe' or 'existence'. - Without love, magick would not be a reality. - ******************************************************************* 3. What does magick have to do with: i. Power Power is the force behind Magick. Control is necessary to balance power. - If you want power, be Donald Trump. - Power is the measure of what can be done by one who can cause magickal phenomena. - Power is the actual motive for effecting change - Magick should NOT be used to attain personal power. - Like I said, Magick is power, just like knowledge is power, or electricity is power, etc. - Errrr...everything. - Power is the ability to exercise will. Can be power over or power with. - Since mine is largely a path of surrender and compassion, I am the wrong person to ask. My definition of power just doesn't jive with most folk's ideas. I like the taoist idea of wisdom in being like water: that which seeks the low places and takes the path of least resistance. When I find myself feeling powerful, I am usually getting myself in trouble, and acting out of harmony. When I feel "seamless" in my actions, then "I" am not acting, and "power" to me is defined egotistically. - Spare me! Aren't our egos big enough as it is? - Power = Energy = Existence. How power is cultivated and applied defines its justification. - ********************************************************************** 3. What does magick have to do with: j. Belief, Faith and Attitude All of these affect to what extent an individual may work Magick. Limiting factors, so to say. - Strongly influenced by magick, for those who practice it. Probably less so for those who don't. - Belief, Faith, and Attitude are mental states which enhance magickal manifestations - Belief, faith and attitude are why we bother to go through the motions. - Yup. That's what you need to do it. At least, that's *part* of it... - Faith - Pah ! Belief - Pah ! Attitude - Null. - Belief, Faith, and Attitude are essential to magickal success. - For the student of magick, belief should be the working assumptions or hypotheses by which one runs one's life. These should be derived from experience, and tested by application. From these applications and experiences one draws faith -- those beliefs that are accepted at a level of Knowledge. You should never stop examining your beliefs, but you should consider the usefulness of different degrees of doubt. If you are always letting your intellect or your emotions get in the way of action because of doubt, you aren't doing it right. It *should* happen sometimes, but not always. I have an old story I tell of a man I met who didn't know what faith was. He wanted a 50-word or less definition. I got to chatting with him about music, and turns out we both love Mozart. I related the way I felt about a particular movement, and we sighed over it together. "That," I told him, "is what 'worship' means to me. That welling up of love in the heart, that isn't even voluntary, but just natural." He nodded. I grinned. "How do you know," I asked, "that we were both feeling the same thing, though? You see, *that's* faith." This is not any relation to blind acceptance of another person's ideas. Is that an attitude, or what? - I have no time for these hollow concepts. Leave them for the Christians. - Belief is for those who prefer to take another's experience for their own. Belief has no place in magick that works. Faith is for those who prefer to blindly accept the dogma (or BELIEFS) of another. Faith is certainly a hindrance if one is to attain anything worthwhile. Attitude - Many and varied. The 'new agnosticism' of R.A.Wilson would appear to be the most advantageously useful 'attitude' to adopt. - ********************************************************************** 3. What does magick have to do with: k. Books Good place to learn what others discovered, to offer choices in your own path to discovery... - Books contain information..that can help a person without a teacher find out about a specific path....on the other hand, one can follow ones own inner promptings and forge the lonely path of self-inquiry...books can contribute to a false sense of "knowing",( I think, therefore I am) a kind of pompous mental one-upsmanship... - They are good (occasionally ) signposts and help develop a good philosophical base ( if you choose your books correctly and use a discriminating eye.) - A way in this busy world to share ideas and hints so others may find their magick. - Books are a form of communication. One shouldn't believe everything they read, however. - Through reading, one becomes acquainted with new perspectives. New outlooks enhance one's understanding. - As I said earlier, words can weave spells as readily, if not more so, than anything. What else has such power as to be able to transport a person to another world or another time. To teach, to offer perception, to bring emotions and images to life, whether it be fiction or history. Science or economy (well, maybe not economy, though it can be pretty fanciful). - Books are like little visitors that can whisper thoughts, but can do no actions. - Books can help one attain higher states of consciousness through knowledge. - Consciousness is best symbolized by the spiral or concentric circles. Trees are beings which take the form of such symbols. Their being is one more of consciousness than any other aspect. Each is a doorway into a psychological universe of imagination and analysis. Books are made from trees. They are spiral in design and lead one into a psychological world of beauty and joy. Magick is the perception of this world and the understanding of the language and wisdom of trees and their children. - Books are a method of transferring knowledge from author to reader and can be used (preferrably with a teacher!) to learn the theory and philosophy of the practice of magick. I personally would (and have been) as cautious about "learning magick" solely from books as I would have been attempting to learn bomb disposal solely from books without an instructor (one of my military specialities was that of bomb disposal technician). - Books are the repositories of knowledge that both researchers in the past and those of the present used to instruct others wishing to learn. - Books are primarily study aids. There are a number of books about magick, sorcery, witchcraft, etc. which contain relavent bits of information. It is necessary, however, for each novice not having a proper mentor, to winnow those bits which are usable. - Everything! So far I have not met another practioner of magick and so all I have learned has been from books and personal experience. - Nothing yet. - Books are magick! The communication of ideas is of utmost importance. Books are a large part of the means of imparting this information. - Virtually all books are a form of magic, called books. Not all magic is useful or even available to any single individual, just as it would be impossible for anyone to read all the books in the world. Therefore you must pick the books which mean something to you, just as you must pick the magic you study and use. - Books can express ideas, which are the foundation of Magick. - Some good books have come out of magickal experimentation and belief. It's a strong literary influence. - Books are records of what others have done to cause magickal manifestations, written in an attempt to preserve the knowledge. - Books are funky things made of paper with writing on them that cost too much. - ???? - Books on Magick are sorta like books about physics...you can learn the mechanics if you've got a good text, but if you don't have access to the Power, you're not gonna do anything with it... - Null. - Books are good as resources, but not as absolute truth. - Book learning is best as a catalyst for internal truths. I suspect this is true of all language, though, so why should I make a special case of magick? - Books are a useful medium for recording and transferring information; apparently useful to any science. - *********************************************************************** 3. What does magick have to do with: l. Art Lots. - Didn't I mention that Magick *is* an art? - ???? - Art is aesthetic change. - Art is another way of viewing the universe, and enhancing magickal phenomena. - A lot of art is influenced by magick (and by myth). - Art express ideas more intensely than books. - Art is a wonderful means of conveying feelings, especially after a magical working. - Art is an excellent means of attempting to convey one illusion with another; a good outlet for the subconscious, and so for magickal experience. - Art is the abstraction of reality, to get at some kernal of meaning. This is the goal of magick also, since human comprehension is very limited. Drama, representational arts, dance, and so on were recognized by the Greeks (and many others!) as magickal (sacred) arts. RPG's qualify as drama in this context. However, a random person slam-dancing in a club may not be participating in a sacred art. That part of the phenomenon is internal. - ****************************************************************** 3. What does magick have to do with: m. Myth Myth can provide a validation behind the Magick. A catalyst. - A lot of myth and magick are intertwined. Probably they help each other a lot. - Myths are those stories which exaggerate magickal manifestations or seek to explain magickal manifestations in terms easy for the common person to understand. - Myth is an informal way to make a change with a structure to explain it. - Much of the mythos available talks about Magick. In particular, there exist many Gods/Goddesses that are involved in Magickal work. Using these architypes, or extensions of ourselves, it is possible under certain circumstances to tap into this occurence. This is not the easiest form of Magick, but certainly an experience. - Myth has useful archetypes and good ideas. - Little to none. - Myth is a sacred charter for society which justifies the multiverse. - Myths are ways of creating contagious ideas that can not be stated in concrete form. They indicate experience in an archtypical way. They are part of the pedagogy of magick. - Myth is a great way to observe past magical cultures. - Useful for communicating archetypal imagery down through the ages in symbolic form (symbols of symbols!). Appears to easily assimilate subconscious levels in dream imagery. - ********************************************************************** 3. What does magick have to do with: n. Healing Magick's two purposes are Healing and Creation. - For spiritual healing, quite a bit of influence here. As for physical healing, I dunno. mu - Healing is something which the correct set of actions can cause (whether those actions are scientific or magickal). - pleas for self-pity - Healing is clearly one of the most important uses of Magick. Healing can be accomplished in spiritual, physical, mental, . . . ways of using Magick. - Yup...you can use magick for healing...or not. - Little or none. - Healing is one of many forms of Magick. - My magick is reverse engineered from a skillset of mine that I use in healing (among other things). - Anyone who practices magick is automatically healing themself. - Healing is an effect of some magickal applications -- certainly not a means to an end. - ************************************************************************ 3. What does magick have to do with: ... ('ALL OF THE ABOVE' Answers) All of the above! - I think magick has to do with all the things you mentioned, as well as having nothing to do with any of it. What I mean is, there are many paths that can help a person arrive at the same place...any of the avenues you mentioned could help a person with a specific turn of mind to arrive at a place where their inherent/latent abilities could become manifest... - I am not going to go into each of the fields but in my own belief, Magick has everything to do with all those listed. It is an integral part of life and the human mystery (which encompasses philosophy, religion, and mysticism). Life, nature, and magick are all one and inseperable. It is the life force that makes magick and therefore magick is found in anything that is "alive." - All of the above, used properly. - Magick has everything to do with all of them. Indeed, it is an indispensible part of them all. - What constitutes magic(k)? YES. Everything can be a part of magic(k) work. The limit is only up to the practitioner. - The magick of each is a different combination and quantity of the major necessary components: Science - More physical effort Religion - More Higher Power and belief Mysticism - More belief Philosophy - More belief Nature - More Higher Power God/Goddess - definitely Higher Power and belief Life - all of the above Love - all of the above Power - Higher Belief, Faith and Attitude - everything Books - physical effort and belief Art - belief and physical effort Myth - belief Healing - all of the above - ************************************************************************** 4. What are the essential components of a 'magickal working'? Anything and everything! - Depends on the individual or group. The only ones I have found to be necessary are : focusing of intent, raising of power, focusing of power through intent, and dispelling of power. - The ritual, the implements, the altar. - Essential is your will and your belief. - Nothing more than the correct mind set and mental discipline. - will/desire/id/energy and word/plan/control/definition - There really aren't any ESSENTIAL components. Admittedly, it is easier for me to do Magick sitting by myself somewhere quiet in the woods than it would be attending a concert, but that is me. - It depends on what you're trying to do...in general though, the only _essential_ component is one's inner ability to manipulate the Energies. - ANY required change may be effected by the application of the proper kind and degree of Force in the proper manner, through the proper medium to the proper object. [from Crowley] - The desire for a result, and some action which will cause the result to manifest. - First, get the right mindset. Then do it. - Focussed Energy/Belief/Higher Power/Physical effort and concentration/Ritual of some kind - A clear and specific purpose, a direct Will, and 'energized enthusiasm.' Nothing but accidental and sloppy work can proceed without the first listed, nothing whatsoever can occur if it is not directed in accordance with the Will, and no force or current can be generated without the last. There are other factors depending entirely upon one's current reality tunnel. - A very strong will. - *********************************************************************** 5. Where is the dividing line between role-playing game magic and occult practice? One is fun, harmless, perhaps inspiring further inquiry....the other is a Way, a Path, a study, a work, an inner "becoming"... - The line is drawn by the power of the will, the intent, the focus, and the clarity of the individual. - In games all that is needed is consistency. In real magick that consistency must adhere to metaphysical laws to function. - If there is a dividing line, that's where I practice... - Role-playing game magick doesn't have very much to do with real magick at all, although it can be aesthetically amusing. - Role-playing is a means by which one can learn to understand magic, but not become a part of it. The games do not cause one to be more magically inclined, but rather more knowledgable of magic. - The dividing line is in a persons thoughts. I don't know much about occult practices, but I've always felt that anyone who take anything too seriously has some major problems. - Mess with yourself, but not with others. - There is no parallel. - The first is the imagination of experience, the second, experience itself. The first is an abstraction, the second a presentness. The first is symbolic in form AND content, the second is symbolic only in form. The first is less serious, the second, less whimsical. - The same place as the dividing lines between any "real world" activity and role-playing games which mirror them (clearly or with some distortion). - Role-playing magic is in the imagination, it has no effect upon the real world as we know it. Occult practice is the real life practice of certain disciplines, usually those of the dark sides. Not all magic (i.e. belief in the changing of the world by force of will) is Occult practice. - When you, as the practicioner, perform an act of sorcery with the full belief and intent that the sorcery will be effective, then you have gone beyond the bounds of role-playing and into the area usually refered to as the occult. - One is of imagination, the other of practice and mind. - RPG Magic is cute and simple. - Yes. The dividing line lies at the point of reality. Cyberspace notwithstanding. Remember, Computers are Magick!!! - The dividing line between "playing around" with magic and occult practice is the alter. When you seek to invoke or evoke other spiritual entities into your own magic, you can very, very easily lose control of it. When it requires worship it is no longer magic, it is religion. Magic comes from inside of each person, and can be augmented with love (involving more people). When, however, you seek to involve entities which you could never hope to understand, you aren't just asking for it, you're buying a ticket and standing in line for trouble. - The line seems to be drawn in the flashiness of its appearance. Role-playing games tend to follow the legendary effects of magic, as opposed to the true, far more benign results. This is appearance only, not power. - The difference is in the mind. Do you think it's going to come true in real life? Are you focusing on it to a point of totality? - When you start performing the rituals, you get into dangerous ground if you're just "playing". - Role-players for the most part really don't believe in it. They believe that it is possible for their characters, because their characters live in a different Plane of existence than our own - Role-playing game magic would be perfectly valid as occult practice if that sort of mind set allowed the practitioner to cause magickal phenomena. The idea that magick is learned, used and erased from the mind is more than likely untrue. - There is one? If so it is in the sphere that change is expected to occur - Role-playing is just that. It is pretend. When you slay a troll with a death-spell, it is in play. Magick in reality is when you intentionally plan on working for some particular REAL result. - Role-playing game magic is fantasy - made up. Occult practice is in real life, regardless of whether it works or not. - No connection at all. - When it is taken seriously and employed to manifest a goal. - Wishful thinking vs. real work? Outward signs vs. an inward and something-or-the-other truth? (Damn, can't remember that quote from the catechism...) Most folks who play rpg's would be too lazy to do anything formal with magick, I think, though. Too many of them are using RPGs as a way to escape life. A really bad approach to magick. Or do you mean: "Is RPG playing a form of magickal working?" Like any art, it can be sacred. - In each participating mind. Either you've crossed over or you haven't... There is no Universal line - we each have an 'inner' line. - Role-playing games have little or none of the above listed essential components to effective magick. Any effects which might manifest would tend to be latent natural abilities (such as clairvoyance) and would utilize incredibly useless energy packets (the 'astral shells') -- useless to the knowledgeable; a possible danger to an incredibly naive and imaginative individual. - Role-playing should be left to the 'D&D ers'. - ********************************************************************** 6. What is your age, place of birth, heritage, and source of magickal instruction (if any)? 24 Ridgewood New Jersey, USA English (British) ancestors Self Taught, Books and innate feelings - 20 Dayton Ohio Danish self-taught through observation and practice. - 22 Canadian mixed European background no formal training. - 20 Chicago Full Blooded German Nothing save a small bit of mind over body with the martial arts I've been in. The simple stuff: Control of pain, Slow Blood Rate and Breathing, and Kaii. - 21 Ontario, Canada European (mostly British/Scottish) no formal instruction. - Fuck you and your mother with a lead pipe. - 23 Massachusetts Austrian-Dutch-Portugeuse I am a practicing Witch and have been for about 5 years. I have read several books on the Craft that have instructed me on how to work Magick. - 21 Buffalo, NY, USA 50% Irish, 25% Polish, 25% German Self taught, with a little help from my friends... - 19 Welwyn Garden City, England. No particular heritage. Crowley's Books. - 23 Indiana British self taught. - I am 32 years old, born in Dayton, Ohio. I grew up in the mountains of central Vermont. My mother is eastern european jewish, and my father is a rather mongrel mixture of stuff, mostly Romany, generally from the Bohemian Plain area of Czechoslovakia/Germany. Some of what I know is taught ***NOT*** as magick, by my family. This is a whole topic to itself. My dad was disowned by his family for marrying a jew, so I didn't even *know* my family background until about 4 years ago, when I was told by an historian at harvard that my last name was Romany. My father is a retired Unitarian Universalist minister, and not real big on the paranormal. My mom and I, on the other hand, always had a close "magickal" relationship. We knew 30 seconds ahead of time when the other person was going to call for us. (as in, Shava yells "Coming!" downstairs, as mom is thinking of calling me to come set the table...) It wasn't 100% of the time, but it was a lot more than probability could account for. We also cursed motorboats, and broke them (but that's another long story -- call us ecoguerrillas!) I've been a natural healer since at least the age of 5. I attribute this to a natural strength in my heart chakra (from before I knew there was a chakra system). The model/visualization I had of what I do with my healing matches into system of chakra/kundalini magick, and also maps somewhat into acupuncture traditions. I consider myself to be a strong empath, in that I am very sensitive to the emotional interplay of persons around me, including cultural cues, and what I suspect are some sort of sub-text signals, but I have never been able to prove this to my satisfaction, so I really usually hesitate to say so... My interest in magick and related topics has lead me to become active as a neopagan, although I still identify myself (also) as UU, and could easily say that I am christian, buddhist, or any of a number of other religions which have been major influences on me. I believe that magick and religion are strongly interrelated, and it is very hard to pry them apart. However, in this sense I mean one's *personal* religion, not some professed organized external dogma... My training in formal magick has been over the past 7 years, since meeting my (now) husband, who has been studying the stuff since he was a kid. To a large extent, I have reverse engineered the formal ritual magick model onto stuff I already "know" but didn't know how to talk about. My "book learning" has included all sorts of stuff as listed in the alt.magick FAQ posting, and oodles of other stuff. I'm very fond of Giordano Bruno, for example. Learning to communicate what I already know has lead me to consider actually writing magick, and I am currently working on a book, the working title of which is A_Garden_Variety_Mystic. I am always learning more, both from my reading, and from life. Hurrah! - 26 Palo Alto, Ca descended from English, Russian, Romanian and German Jews No major instruction - self-ritual from childhood, books - 21 Lebanese and German-Irish bloodlines Various sources - 22 Hollywood, Ca Brazilian! - ******************************************************************** 7. With what occult or religious organizations have you ever become involved? None - except standard Christian Lutheran Church during upbringing. - Wiccan circles, Zen Center (San Francisco), Swami Chidvalasinada (basically involved with the practice of the raising of kundalini), have lived with men who were practicing members of western occultism, have practiced tantric yoga... - Grew up in the Catholic church, have done alot of meditation retreats, worked with alot of different teachers both eastern and western, a trained rebirther, astrologer, seminar organizer, some connection with Unity church when I want a more traditional environment. Haven't been very active in the last couple years except personally. - I am High Priest of Keepers Of The Holy Chalice - a Wiccan Coven. I am also a member of Free Spirit Alliance. - Episcipalian, buddist, republican, muslim, taoist, zen and too many to remember at once, but I now consider myself a pagan, on my 16th b'day (friday the 13th) held a black mass and sacrificed a virgin (boy was she hard to find) and have finally come back to that... - None formally. - I feel that [this computer service] is a religious organization of sorts. That would be the only group I would link myself with, as my other beliefs are more of a personal nature. - I was raised (at least for a few years) as a good Southern Baptist, attending Sunday School when everyone wanted a day away from the kids. Since then, I have not been affiliated or in any way involved with any occult or religious organizations. - I once shook Muhammad Ali's hand. - I am the Grand Inquisitor in chief of The House of Apostles of Eris, G.D.D. div ision, Sebastopol cabal, and Keeper of the Sacred Chao. - Brief encounter with Christian and Mormon Churches when young. Investigated Scientology to understand their views. Brief encounters with local Zen Temple, Krishna Consciousness Movement, Nichiren Shoshu of America and Rajneeshparam (Bagwan Sri). More direct contact and interest in Ordo Templi Orientis, South Bay Circles Wiccan Network, Vedantic Society of San Jose and, most recently, Metropolitan Community Church. - I was at one time a Roman Catholic (Marian, of course), and now am a member of the Council of the Magickal Arts, a local (mostly Central/East Texas) organization of people "practicing magick in light and love, having reverence for Mother Earth and worshipping the God/ess." - I prefer that to be my secret and my shame.....it concerns none but myself and only in extreme need will I discuss it. - None. - I am not affiliated with any. I have, however, studied catholism, Hindu, Buddhist teachings, Indian Occultism, Mormanism, and a wide assortment of other beliefs, all in quite some detail. - N/A. - I've been a solitaire for some time. My Soon to be Ex-wife and I were members of a Gardnarian Trad Coven for some time. I'm not at liberty to give any more info beyond that due to the restrictions of my coven. - I am the founder of The Church of the Open Mind. This is a totally informal, unauthorized, unordained, uncertified and fundamentally fictitious organization. Meetings are held psuedo-weekly, usually between two to three persons, and frequently over a meal. There is only one major principle which all members must subscribe to, and that is: You cannot be absolutely sure of anything. I have some experience in the Episcopal Church, was married in a Universalist Unitarian Church, and have virtually no familiarity with any occult organization. Although there was that one incident with the Ouija board... - None (well a very short brush with a very young wiccan coven) - No organizations. - None. I leave them alone, and they leave me alone. This includes the catholic church. - I'm not involved in any organizations. - This news group only. - IRS, Modern academia, many others - Wicca - I've been in contact with the Rainbow Path Wiccan Coven and the local chapter of the OTO here in Buffalo, and I'm also the president of the Alternative Religions Student Association here at SUNY at Buffalo. - The Roman Catholic Church, until an early age (ptui) - Several Wiccan covens, Circle Sanctuary, and Church of All Worlds - Unitarian Universalist Assn of North America Covenant of UU Pagans (CUUPs, co-founder) Crystal Winds (semi-defunct former boston area coven) various local UU, Jewish, and Pagan groups where I've lived at various times hmmm... ACLU? The interfaith council homeless shelter? Habitat for Humanity? the democratic party? these are all magickal organizations on some level, I suppose... - Wicca, eclectic for now - Order of the Temple of the East and others - Ordo Templi Orientis - *********************************************************************** 8. Please give a brief description of your last magickal work or an example of something similar in nature. Hmmmm... Well the last ritual work done is years ago...but the last energy magic(k) work was yesterday and mostly was just helping a friend ground and feel better about themselves - Last Magickal work? Healing of an ache in a friend. - A tantric spell which helped me and my current SO get together. - I have been unable to achieve the proper state of mind for such. - no - My last one was probably in a healing circle last sabbat (Samhain, October 31). There were AT LEAST 20 healing requests including everything from recovery from cancer to emotional healing from years of sexual abuse. There was a wide variety of healing methods done. Many involved group chants and raising energy, some involved spiral dances, some involved physical banishing of the malignancy, and some involved our "battery healing" which is the most powerful healing technique I have ever used. - Hm...I haven't really done any major workings lately that I'm at liberty to talk about...personal stuff, y'know. We have held a few public Wiccan circles here at the university, though. Pretty standard stuff - draw the circle, call quarters, invoke the God and Goddess, do a little meditation, and close up. - None, unless yoga counts. - It was a basic money spell involving visualization, and sympathetic magick. - Does writing this count? - I held a single circle to work a healing for a friend I love. I tied up a token, healing herbs, etc. into a piece of cloth and said the words that came to me. He has been able to cry now...he never used to be able to cry. I helped. I sent energy focused in ritual. - Workings are done on a daily and in some cases hourly schedule with a decidedly Thelemic-Hermetic perceptual grid. Similarities can be seen with certain forms of yoga (dharana, asana, hatha, etc.) in combination and/or individually from traditional Western ceremonial magic and Thelemic magick. - Banishings, sex - ********************************************************************* 9. What authors of works about magick have most inspired you (if any)? Margot Adler, "Drawing Down the Moon" - Dion Fortune, Z. Budapest, Robert Graves, Starhawk, Aleister Crowley, Austin Spare, Suzuki Rosi, e.e.cummings; Dr. John Dee, very unique medieval gentleman whose Enochian magical system is without a doubt unmatched for its singularity. - Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary, Leonard Orr, Shakti Gawain, Isaac Asimov, Greg Bear. - The list is long but a few are Starhawk, Ursula LeGuin, Judy Grahn, Murry Hope, Dion Fortune, and Theodore Roszak. - heinlein, lao tzu, anthony (macroscope),poe ... - Many. I read a lot. None of them dominate my thought, though. I like reading a variety of authors from many different schools of thought. - William Blake, Aldous Huxley, the Wall Street Journal - J.R.R. Tolkien, Lao Tzu, William Shakespeare, Alan Watts, Lewis Carroll, Nagarjuna, Dwayne Dyer, Raymond Smullyan, Douglas Hofstatder, Zeno, Richard Bach, Carl Sagan, Basho, Robert Anton Wilson, Matthew/Mark/Luke, Valmiki, Dr. Seuss, Plato, William Gibson, Aleister Crowley, Anne Rice, Ursula K. LeGuin, Paul Williams, Jacob Needleman, John Crowley, Sri Nikhilananda, Fung-Yu Lan, Patricia McKillip, Chuang Tzu, Steven King, Fu Hsi, Stephen Donaldson, Kung Fu Tzu, Ray Bradbury, Lin Yu-Tang, and, with great reverence, John Blofeld. - Good question - what do you mean by "inspired?" Keeping this in the context of my personal philosophy of life and the practice of magick, a partial list of authors whom I have learned from (and it has to remain partial, simply because I can unfortunatly not remember all of them, come across new "teachers" constantly, and don't have the time/space to list all of them!) is as follows (in alphabetical order, naturally): P.E.I. Bonewits, Marian Zimmer Bradley, Martin Buber, Joseph Campbell, Fritjof Capra, Vivianne Crowley, Anne Dillard, Riane Eisler, Loren Eisley, Mircea Eliade, T.S. Eliot, Colin Fletcher, Buckmaster Fuller, Gerald Gardner, Mark Gerzon, Robert Graves, Michael Harner, Robert Heinlein, Eugen Herrigel, Eric Hoffer, Jean Houston, Thomas Jefferson, Carl Jung, Rudyard Kipling, Sheldon Kopp, Ursula K. LeGuin, John Lilly, Konrad Lorenz, Robert Masters, Ian McHarg, Victor Papanek, Fritz Perls, Carl Rodgers, Starhawk, Merlin Stone, D.T. Suzuki, Lewis Thomas, Lao Tsu, Doreen Valiente, Barbara Walker, Alan Watts. Incidently, the criteria I used in making this list were 1) who do I have in my library and re-read often, and 2) who else could I think of at the moment without forcing it. This list would probably be different tomorrow! Also, you may notice that those authors who write what I think of as "How-To" books are missing (for the most part) from the list. This is intentional. While I have "learned" from those authors such as Buckland, Z Budapest, Marion Weinstein, etc, I do not feel that they have been as important to my spiritual/metaphysical/occult development as those I listed (many of whom are strange bedfellows indeed). - My inspiration comes from varied sources: from the Christian Bible to the Bhagavad-Gita, Science, Philosophy, Fantasy, and ScienceFiction. - Not applicable. - None really, but I liked what I have read from Starhawk, Cunningham, and a little known(and sort of crazy) author called Dr. LW de Laurence. - Huh, huh huh. - Heinlien, Jensen (soon to be Ex-wife), Buckland, and too many others to be listed. - Authors which have inspired me include H.G. Wells for the time machine, Isaac Asimov for the robots, Ray Bradbury, Robert Fulghum, Ursula K. LeGuin, and of course, J.R.R. Tolkien. Oh, and Douglas Adams. - Starhawk to a certain extent and the Argent Star works also to an extent but really no single author influenced me that much. - Sanaya Roman, Mercedes Lackey (fiction). - None, really. I do what seems right to me. - Books I've read are Necronimicon, Several Books on the Tarot (Rider Waite, and Thoth decks), I just got a new one on the Tree of Life (the tree inside us all or something like that). - Aleister Crowley, any number of fictional magick authors. - Dr. Seuss - Stuart and Janet Farrar, Scott Cunningham, Starhawk, and Margot Adler - Crowley, Robert Anton Wilson, and the Principia Discordia, mostly, with hundreds of other little bits here and there. - Crowley basically. - Starhawk, Buckland, Gardner, Agrippa, Barrett, Frazer. - Mircea Eliade, Alestair Crowley, Edward T. Hall, Chogyam Trungpa, Ken Wilbur, Robt. Anton Wilson, JRR Tolkien (blush -- but early influences are important), the disciples of Gautama Buddha and Yeshua ben-Yosef, Da Free John, Ramakrishna, and a cast of thousands... - Ly Warren Clark, Starhawk, Z Budapest - TO MEGA THERION, Aleister Crowley (yes, I differentiate between the several personalities which manifested in the man A.C.), Israel Regardie, Soror Meral, R.A. Wilson, Patrick Zaleweski, S.L. MacGregor Mathers, and others. - G. Garcia Marquez, Crowley, Regardie, Reich. - ***************************************************************** 10. What is the future of magick? Whatever and wherever we want it to go. The skys the limit. - Magick will continue it's "backyard practice" for many years to come, as it gradually gains acceptance, but not practice, along the way. - The future of magick is the future of man. It will always be with us in some form. - It'll come back slowly, more and more people are trying to get back to their roots and believing in the folklores. - To be understood and relabeled science. - Same as it's past - more pretentious assholes sounding like they know their ass from a hole in the ground. - It has always been and will always be. - Depends on what we do with it in the present... - Fuck knows. - It will become more common in mainstream life. - What is the future? I like to think that more people are going to understand more as time goes on. That the "message of the Aeon" will be continually reinterpreted and dispersed. However, historical precedent isn't with me. The future of magick is what the future brings. *shrug* - More humans are realizing their potential... I see renaissance! - Magick and evolution go hand in hand. Each shall help to define and develop the other regarding their joint venture. - Magick will continue to grow, like a weed. - *************************************************** END END END END END END In a thoughtful and patient set of remarks from From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.magick Subject: Crowley's sex magick etc. Date: 5 Jan 92 19:10:29 GMT about a long & rather incoherent post of my own, there was a great deal that I agreed with -- and even where there was disagreement, what I thought I said agreed more with TMN than what TMN thought I'd said. I will try to be clearer (and briefer) in the future... [re Crowley's biases about women etc] Not only these limitations, but also note that his childhood and were largely influenced by his father, who was a fanatic Christian of puritanical (?) bent. Also, Crowley's focus, over time, seems to fall in line with the 'Gnostic' end of Hermeticism, which is notoriously other- worldly in its focus, and, in its earlier writings, VERY misogynist in character. I agree; I'd meant to wave in the general direction of a great mass of cultural, biographical, historical, and so on, contextual sources for his biases. I should have stuck something like "etc., etc." in somewhere, to make it clear I'd no intention of claiming a definitive list. I'm not *quite* sure I'd let that characterisation of the "'Gnostic' end of Hermeticism" pass unremarked [there: I haven't!], but it would take a long conversation to sort it all out. So... In response to my references to Agehananda Bharati, Tagi Mordred Nagashiva remarked I am unfamiliar with A. Bharati, whom you note, yet feel that is irrelevant if this individual 'infrequently remarked irritatedly' about 'Euroamerican Tantrics' in such an unbalanced fashion. Perhaps I got the wrong impression here. Well, my references didn't do justice to the late Swami Agehananda Bharati. I will try to make amends. But since I can't do it briefly here, I'll do it in another posting. I will say that he was something of a Popperian (philosophically), and a Dasanami sannyasin and tantric (religiously), and for a long time chairman of anthropology at Syracuse University. And very funny. Tagi then goes on to clarify the way he wants to approach issues of practice and intention: I shall address myself more to the PRACTICE of Tantrism as I've come to know it, rather than engage many HISTORICAL arguments regarding those practices of India or China at any time. The partner of the adept is purely and simply the rest of the Cosmos. If this Cosmos resolves itself into a particular individual during ritual, then so much the better, and we may then say that this 'partner' is in this sense 'purely and simply instrumental' to the adept. One's practice is to relate to the Goddesshead THROUGH the partner as a mask. So far so good, as the presentation of one's own experience and attitudes, and the sense one finds in the records of others' experiences and attitudes. This of course has its material component in the body of the partner hirself in the case gender and identity of the partner not relevant to the adept during this working, it must be resolved with the gender and identity of the adept hirself for the rite to achieve success. This observation is I think linked with the next, and it is clear as a report of one's own experience and practice -- but there is a shift in the manner of speaking in the next part from that of a personal statement to that of a general claim. As a general claim, I think, it is less supportable. One does not 'do sex magick on an unsuspecting partner' in the same way that one one might 'achieve orgasm using another body's orafice'. It is not impersonal in the sense of being objective. This is a difficult concept to express accurately. Sex magick involves entering into a dance ... I break here. _One_ may not do these things, but some people do, not least among them some Taoists, Tantrics, and (by his own evidence) Aleister Crowley. Even in the more mytsical and less manipulative sense, one may in one's own universe achieve an annihilation of the difference between subject and object, of ego and not-ego/everything- else, without the ego of (say) the partner noticing anything but the usual in the partner's universe. Claims that the partner is "really" affected are ontological or metaphysical claims, like Crowley's claims that the world was destroyed by fire in 1904 e.v., and that people who didn't agree just hadn't realized it yet. ...either through discipline or enjoyment, denial or indulgence, or more likely a combination of the two, so as to reach the state of moksha, liberation, in which the 'True Will' that Crowley and others spoke so much about, may be directly experienced. I suspect that this is why he had a designated title for his 'partners', though I haven't researched it - his 'Scarlet Woman'. I think that for AC, the "Scarlet Woman" was a title of a woman (I don't think a man ever held that position) with a special relationship to him -- not simply of any partner in the sexual act of the moment. I *think* he only had one at a time. But it *may* have been a term with two senses -- the formal or hierarchical, and the functional. Chapter and verse, anyone? Don't get me wrong, people can do sex magick this way, but I submit it will not provide many lasting and valuable results. This is in part an empirical question; in part a matter of how one evaluates the results. A "good" result for someone who wants to get rich is a "bad" result for someone who thinks one it a trap to lust after wealth. I have heard much about the supposed 'power' of 'sex energy' and the harnessing of this to attain one's ends. To the extent that it is turned toward material gain or some other addition to one's ego, this only leads to further suffering or delusion. There is no end to such a quest. This is described well in Hinduism AND in Buddhism. refraction which has occurred since he lived. [some deletion] The Indian traditions, while seemingly maintained by men by and large, and focussed largely on masculine images and words (if the translation screen they have been filtered through didn't create this effect), have important elements of Feminism when it comes to Tantric images .... I suggest that India as a whole is no more misogynist than other regions of patriarchy, and that its sex magick, as it stands, is more often understood in skewed terms by those who attempt to comprehend it than it is in itself supportive of imbalance. The artforms lead one of a discerning eye and ear toward healthy roles for both men AND women. Make sure you don't forget to examine what is considered 'tabu' or 'the left-hand' path. There are important secrets, especially of a sexual nature. Well, this is an empirical question, and a very complex one -- one to which I would not dare to apply the "two legs bad/four legs good" canons of Net criticism. Would anyone dare say, "Netters believe that...."? Is India (over the course of its history) less populous or complex than the Net? With regard to China and Taoist alchemy, I thought Alan Watts fairly covered the whole issue in his book 'Nature, Man and Woman'. In a nutshell, he theorized that the fear of semen-loss derived from anxiety regarding conception and the responsibilities which proceeds from the creation of progeny. This naturally has a deliterious effect upon the adept who wishes to 'transcend mortality', since such a creation automatically sets up a psychological child as one's own and compares hir to oneself, concretizing one's age, time and being in a way which those without children are more likely to overcome. It is not so much an evil as it is the creation of a potential trap. I haven't looked at that book in at least a decade, and actually read it long before that, so I can only address your summary. Fear of semen-loss does not in fact, on the ground, derive from disinclination to conceive. I doubt very much that it has its origin in contemplative or meditative concerns, or even contraceptive concerns. I suspect in fact that it's the reverse -- that is, that things became part of the contemplative/meditative/yogic/whatnot tradition because everyone took them for granted. From my own experience, and from what I've read in the anthropological and psychiatric literature on "culture-bound syndromes," (Arthur Kleinman's a good enough place to start) I would say that fear of semen loss has a lot to do with the vicissitudes of sexuality (repression, denial, projection, boundary instability, etc., etc.) in the social and cultural settings where it occurs. I think even Van Gulik's speculation (that semen-retention developed in polygynous households to enable the husband to keep up his end of the bargain, as it were) is more sensible than Watts'. I am of ignorant regarding what you call 'Taoist sexual yoga' in that 'yoga' is an Indian term and I don't know the relation. Sexual alchemy is what I discuss here and there ought be no confusion if the terms actually do describe different practices. Here actually I meant to use (as I had mentioned toward the beginning, looking for a general term for ritual/magical/contemplative/yogic sexual activities of all sorts) the term "yoga" as a stand-in term of convenience for an otherwise bizarrely long and pedantic phrase. "Alchemy" is also able to give a misleading sense of the range of goings-on, though it could well be added to the batch of slashes above. Tagi adds: I concur and would go one further by saying that not only are 'sex' and 'sexuality' social products, but so are gender and personal roles. It can and has been forcefully argued that the entirety of one's 'personality', down to one's sexual preferences, are learned and reinforced by society. This, in my opinion, is the REAL reason to practice sex-magick - to break the conditioning of society and transcend it. Again, as a personal statement this is last remark is incontrovertible. But though it may be the REAL (tm) reason, it is not always the ACTUAL reason-on- the-ground that concrete empirical people do sexual things in magical/ ritual/ alchemical/ contemplative/ whatnot contexts. Since sex is not only the most personal and intimate of social activities, but also one of the most instinctive and autonomous, it follows that it can be the most powerful and effective grounds on which to begin and complete the quest to end the articificial constraints which (Parents, Church, Government) tend to employ towardtheir ends through the encouragement of dependence and irrational fear. Here I cannot exactly agree. What sex "is," and how it is experienced and lived, are two different issues, one metaphysical, the other empirical. For some people the quotated statement would be true; for others it would not. In some societies, it would be likelier than not to be untrue for most of the people one would run into. In some societies, what our psychiatrists and sex therapists call "anhedonia" is a consummation (so to speak) devoutly to be wished. At that point, it is celibacy that is liberating -- and subversive. This is why all such texts, from EVERY source must be read in the context of the prevailing views of the culture of its origin. is, of course, no exception. Nor are the Indian or Chinese adepts previously mentioned. Here I agree fully. While I am not aware which practices you associate with 'Indian' and which you see as 'Taoist', it must be said that much of Crowley's magick, especially that which contains associations of the feminine with the passive, and much of his philosophy including polarity, arise from strict Taoist influence. His favorite text, it would seem (aside, perhaps from Liber Al) was Tao Te Ching (or King, as he wrote it {due to his adoption of the peculiar but "scientific" romanization system of the _Sacred Books of the East_ -- LeGrand}). As far as I can make out, AC's ideas of the contemplative/"subtle"/magical body were much more Indian than Chinese (though oddly this is not as true of the GD/RR&AC). Taoist sexual whatnot, in fact Taoist whatnot in general, tends to use a very different schematization of the subtle body, in rather different ways. Hindu Tantrics (according to Agehananda Bharati) tend to see ejaculation as homologous with casting a sacrifice onto a fire. This image, and the whole iconographic active/passive problem, is not an issue in the general Taoist context (as far as I know: but there's a huge amount to know, and I only know a tiny bit of it). There is some influence from the Buddhist Tantric seed/breath/mind stoppage schema, but Taoism has goals and procedures of its own. Identifying Taoism with the Tao Teh Ching is like identifying the whole Platonic/Neoplatonic tradition from Plotinos through St Augustine to Macgregor Mathers with the Parmenides. It's not exactly wrong, but it's not exactly the whole story, either. ... one cannot make clear and concise distinctions about such a comprehensive and syncretic system as his. Agreed. AC could use a good, thorough bunch of academic pedants to establish texts and editions, debate and clarify influences, demonstrate philosophic achievements and prattfalls, etc, etc. Fat chance. On second though, just as well perhaps. Bald head forgetful of their sins, Old, learned, respectable bald heads Edit and annotate the lines That young men, tossing on their beds, Rhymed out in love's despair To flatter beauty's ignorant ear. All shuffle there, all cough in ink; All wear the carpet with their shoes; All think what other people think; All know the man their neighbor knows. Lord, what would they say Did their Catullus walk that way? (Yeats, "The Scholars") -- Good gravy/grief/gracious. Did I generate all that text? Better luck next time... --LeGrand 9201.05 Summary: LeGrand approaches my response with respect and erudition. The conversation about sex magick and world culture continues. LeGrand comments, amidst preliminaries: I will try to be clearer (and briefer) in the future... [You and I both, my friend! Much material omitted] I'm not *quite* sure I'd let that characterisation of the "'Gnostic' end of Hermeticism" pass unremarked (there: I haven't!), but it would take a long conversation to sort it all out. Response: I'd like to hear what you have to say on this subject. It is with great interest and little knowledge that I spoke about it at all to begin with. It seems that not only is 'Gnosticism' a major element in Hermeticism (or perhaps more acurately vice versa), but Crowley had a clear interest in it (thus the 'Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica' in O.T.O.). Would you be so kind as to post your comments under a separate subject heading and we could proceed from there? If you have the inclination and time, of course. LeGrand: Well, my references didn't do justice to the late Swami Agehananda Bharati. I will try to make amends. But since I can't do it briefly here, I'll do it in another posting. I will say that he was something of a Popperian (philosophically), and a Dasanami sannyasin and tantric (religiously), and for a long time chairman of anthropology at Syracuse University. And very funny. Response: I shall be interested to read any posting you make on this as well. Thank you for the brief overview in any case. [Much material omitted] LeGrand comments on the tone of my posting, suggesting that: there is a shift in the manner of speaking ...from that of a personal statement to that of a general claim. As a general claim, I think, it is less supportable. Response: I agree. I move from my own experience of the tantric perspective to my own thoughts regarding its theoretical context and fundamental values which seem to accompany it. LeGrand then claims that, in seeming contrast to my assertion that 'doing sex magick on an unsuspecting partner' is different than 'achieving orgasm using another body's orafice', _One_ may not do these things, but some people do, not least among them some Taoists, Tantrics, and (by his own evidence) Aleister Crowley. Even in the more mytsical and less manipulative sense, one may in one's own universe achieve an annihilation of the difference between subject and object, of ego and not-ego/everything- else, without the ego of (say) the partner noticing anything but the usual in the partner's universe. Response: I was unclear. I meant to assert that sex-magick which has ego dissolution as its end cannot be done with the same mechanical appearance as some rote sexual act. The partner may not know what is going on, but indeed they will be able to sense a profound difference in both the attitude of the mage and the intimate interaction. As I said, I don't think that sex magick is impersonal in the sense of being objective. What I mean by this is that the mage, again, the mage who has ego-dissolution as goal, enters into this event/working with a subjective focus. The partner, unless they are very insensitive, will not be able to ignore the obvious power of the interaction, nor the genuineness, the 'truth', if you will, of the exchange. It CANNOT, under the circumstances which I describe, appear as a rote act. I agree with you that some mages do not share the goal of ego dissolution, use their partners as generators, and attempt to harness the generated power for personal gain. I am unconcerned with this for the reasons I detailed in my previous post. I think it leads nowhere fast. The net result may be pleasure (from gain etc.), but the overall state of the mage is unchanged (perhaps even further burdened by the absorption of more 'possessions'). In the case of an insensitive partner, of course, nothing would be noticed. I think that both the strength of the dissolution and its DURATION will be directly affected (not determined) by the sensitivity of the partner and any goals that the partner may have. If the partner is ALSO a mage with similar ends in mind (none may be best here ;>), then the result is bound to be more powerful, more enduring, and more instructive. LeGrand comments: I think that for AC, the "Scarlet Woman" was a title of a woman (I don't think a man ever held that position) with a special relationship to him -- not simply of any partner in the sexual act of the moment. I *think* he only had one at a time. But it *may* have been a term with two senses -- the formal or hierarchical, and the functional. Chapter and verse, anyone? Response: Aside from Liber Al, with a brief look I find these passages: "In _The Vision and the Voice_, the attainment of the grade of Master of the Temple was symbolized by the adept pouring every drop of his blood, that is his while individual life, into the Cup of the Scarlet Woman, who represents Universal Impersonal Life." This is from page 795 of _The Confessions of Aleister Crowley_, ed. by Symonds and Grant. More elaborately: "The twelfth Aethyr describes the City of the Pyramids, whose queen is called BABALON, the Scarlet Woman, in whose hand is a cup filled with the blood of the saints. Her ecstasy is nourished by the desires which the Masters of the Temple have poured from their hearts for her sake. In this symbolism are many mysteries concealed. One is that if a single drop of blood be withheld from her cup it putrefies the being below the Abyss and vitiates the whole course of the adept's career." Ibid, page 622, and this is actually a quote from _The Vision..._ if I am not mistaken. Also, the editor(s) note: "The Scarlet Woman: a technical term complementary to that of the Beast for the office held by any directly inspired female medium of the gods." Ibid, page 930. My impression is that this 'office' can be seen in many ways in the same light that the Tantric 'Shakta' or 'Shakti' is seen by the adept. They are the personal partner through whom we may come to unify with the Impersonal Other. This is as much an office as it is a relationship with the individual mage. I have not studied this in too much depth, however. Also, it seems very interesting to me that we may relate the 'pouring of the heart's blood into the Cup of Babalon, the Scarlet Woman', with the physical act of ejaculation during intercourse. This is, in many ways, a clear recommendation to ENJOY climax, to move beyond the withholding of orgasm (from solely the male point of view) and enjoy the moment, the beautiful EXPERIENCE of sex. With respect to the female point of view, which stimulated this discussion to begin with, one places oneself in the office of the Scarlet Woman, accepts the contribution of the saint's heart, turns this blood into the sacred wine, and presents this Elixir to the Most High as fare for passage across the Abyss, and then achieves the grade if the wine was of purity. I'd suggest that the 'turning of the blood into wine' is not only a reverse-Christian motif in mythic form, but also involves its mingling with the flesh of the Scarlet Woman. SHE tranforms it. Such a product could also be seen as a child, so this approximates the parallel to conception, gestation and birth, whether literal or mystical. It also relates well to the development of the 'Magical Child' which is often spoken about in Hermetic circles (read Crowley's _Moonchild_) and the 'Pill of Immortality' written about in some Taoist Alchemical texts. The role of the woman, therefore, is Receptor, Transformer, Generator. She is also the one who presents the Dweller on the Threshhold with the wine which will lead to rejuvenation (thus the importance of not only the Holy Graal in Crowley's and other Hermeticists' literature, but also the ambisexuality/androgyny of Perzifal/Galahad when characterized as the vehicle for such a presentation in Arthurian mythos). Enough on this for now, perhaps it ought be a separate thread. LeGrand comments: This is in part an empirical question; in part a matter of how one evaluates the results. A "good" result for someone who wants to get rich is a "bad" result for someone who thinks one it a trap to lust after wealth. Response: I agree yet would note that I was not intending to evaluate the results in any but my own system of values, supported not only by most writers in the field (I think), but also by my own experience. Results in themselves are neither Good nor Bad. Our goals determine its evaluation as to whether it moves us closer to our goals. To the extent that one's goal is immediate pleasure, getting rich is a 'Good' thing. To the extent that one's goals are long-term peace of mind and lasting happiness, getting rich IS a trap. Whether we would therefore categorize it as a 'Bad' thing would depend on how much value such a trap has in moving us toward that goal. It can be argued that traps and failure move one ahead much more quickly, if capitalized upon. This, I'd suggest, is the method of the indulgent Tantric. LeGrand comments on my description of Alan Watts' theories regarding the beginning of semen retention in Chinese Taoist practice. Response: I am grateful for your perspective. I shall look more carefully into it at another time. I am not, as I mentioned previously, interested in debates regarding history. I would only comment that some Taoist mystical classics (Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu...) do not seem very concerned with semen retention, and thus it would seem that the heart of the tradition does not require this. You may know more than I here. LeGrand responds to my assertion that the 'REAL' reason to practice sex magick is to break the conditioning of society and transcend it: ...though it may be the REAL (tm) reason, it is not always the ACTUAL reason-on- the-ground that concrete empirical people do sexual things in magical/ ritual/ alchemical/ contemplative/ whatnot contexts. Response: I agree that from the perspective of the practicing mages, this is not their INTENT. My claim (awkward and unclear as it may have been), to which you agreed, is that it is the only WORTHWHILE reason, the only one which will provide lasting benefit. I think we are agreed here, yet wished to make myself very clear, if possible. LeGrand comments on my claims about sex and society: For some people the [quoted] statement would be true; for others it would not. In some societies, it would be likelier than not to be untrue for most of the people one would run into. In some societies, what our psychiatrists and sex therapists call "anhedonia" is a consummation (so to speak) devoutly to be wished. At that point, it is celibacy that is liberating -- and subversive. Response: Please elaborate. I see your point, yet would like to know more about which societies you see as hedonistic, at present, or in the past, in which one's celibacy would prove transformative. Thanks. LeGrand makes valuable comments regarding Taoist vs. Indian subtle/ magical body in comparison to Crowley's expression, relating him more with the latter (Indian) with the former. Response: I did not speak about the 'subtle/magical/body'. I only compared the ROLE of the male as expressed by Crowley (active, rather than passive). He seems to have cast a very passive role for the female, and this is the case for most of the Hermetics I've read. Now, after my elaboration on Babalon, the Scarlet Woman's Cup, and your mention of Tantric 'casting of a sacrifice into the fire', I can see some relation, yet I am comparing the practice with the cosmology here, perhaps futilely. Taoist mystics most often associate the masculine with Yang. Tantrics, whose focus is often UPON the feminine, often associate her with the Yang, or Active Principle. This is the comparison I was making. In Crowley's theoretics, which draw heavily from the Western Male-Active paradigm, he brings in the polarity of Taoism (which I admit that Tantrism, in reverse-form, shares) for his metaphors. It is in THIS way that I am associating him with Taoists, rather than Indians, though I'm sure, as we've noted, that no absolute distinctions may be made. LeGrand: Identifying Taoism with the Tao Teh Ching is like identifying the whole Platonic/Neoplatonic tradition from Plotinos through St Augustine to Macgregor Mathers with the Parmenides. It's not exactly wrong, but it's not exactly the whole story, either. Response: I agree, and would caution, that those principles which do not hold THROUGHOUT a culture's mystical literature can not be considered central to the practice itself. That Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu do not mention semen-retention and yet often associate the feminine principle with the passive, receptive, goes a long way toward supporting my claims. Other Taoists may well vary, but one cannot dispute the importance which these two authors (however mythical) are given in both Taoist mystical and magical tradition. Yours in admiration, Tagi In article <1992Jan3.085224.8016@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > - I've read a fair amount of Aleister Crowley's writings, and while in > general I find him brilliant (though generally rather murkily so :)), > there are a couple of aspects of his treatment of sex magick which > nag at me. Now, maybe I just don't have my Beast 666 Secret Decoder > Ring set right :), but it seems to me that his framework does not > allow for the possibility of women being mages on the same footing as > men. Either that or he found the female analogues of some of his > operations to be too strongly charged to write about at all, however > opaquely. Has anyone else gotten this impression? I admit that I'm > not a Thelemite, and look at Crowley's work mainly as valuable > historical background and a creative work in its own right, rather > than as a direct source for magickal working. His gender bias is > part of my reasons for my this. (Yes, I realize that I'm being a > little opaque here myself... :)) I wonder how many women have the same problems with some varieties of christianity? In this, I think you are seeing Uncle Al as a product of his times, and an upbringing that even all his convulsions couldn't throw off. Crowley wrote as a man, from a venue that has primarily belonged to men (Western Ritual Magick). However, you will probably find the same bias in most tantric writing, for example. I find it disturbing. Who knows, I whisper to myself in the dark, maybe just by being female, there is something about me that just isn't meant to be here, in this search, on this path? Then I try to find what resonates with me about ritual magick, and I realize that much of what is put forth in ritual magick is just simple (pardon the idiom) right-brained truths for left-brained people. We are going to teach you intuition, and how to instinctively see the wonderful web of pattern to the world, by teaching you so many tables of gematria that eventually you will synthesize the n-dimensional truth of the thing by sheer rational overload. Many women who look at formal magicks, therefore, go "ugh. why should I bother?" Much in the same way many women are predisposed to go "Ugh. Calculus. why should I bother?" Because the mechanism seems reductive and nerdly, the path is denigrated. Some women with this attitude will figure it out by their own paths. Some won't. Some will realize that they're missing something useful and beautiful and go back and nerd through it, and then figure out better ways to teach calculus (me! me!). (before I get jumped all over [too late right?] these are cultural gender generalizations, having no definite relationship to sexual characteristics. Although, I really believe that the different psychoactives running thru my brain and my husband's [i.e. hormones] effect the way we see/feel/do things...) So, in summary, I can't be too hard on the old saint (ahem). He was trying to do things the best way he knew how, through his own glass darkly. What he did was make a presentation that was accessible to a whole set of new people, which is all a pedagogue can ask. That his style is appalling and his media obscure to many is praising him with faint damns. What it means is that someone needs to take out the Beast666 decoder ring and *retranslate* and *retranslate* the message, none of which is original I think, for the next generation. Anyone re-read Alan Watts The_Book lately? It becomes more and more giggle- some in style every year... Testaments become dated very quickly unless they are sublimely good, in which case they become dated and perverted over time, instead of dated and forgotten. Yet some people will still be able to pick them up and say, "why do I think I understand what I think this author was meaning that I should feel?" I retain the hope that there is *some* use in trying to write. Shava Nerad Averett shava@gibbs.oit.unc.edu /* late for supper */ -- /* all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT. */ I would like to interject some taoist perspectives to the very erudite discussion between Messrs. Tagi & LeGrand on Sex Magick, Crowley, etc. I know little of Crowley et. al., but study, practice and teach Taoist esoteric yoga (or Taoist Alchemy, if you prefer), which includes solo and partner sexual practices. For people interested, a complete description of these practices can be found in: Taoist Secrets of Love ISBN 0-943358-19-1 male practices Cultivating Female Sexual Energy " 0-935621-05-09 female practices by Mantak and Maneewan Chia. Having assembled the following manually, I may have misattributed some of the sections. My apologies to Messrs. Tagi & LeGrand if I have. >-Tagi >With regard to China and Taoist alchemy, I thought Alan Watts fairly covered >the whole issue in his book 'Nature, Man and Woman'. In a nutshell, he >theorized that the fear of semen-loss derived from anxiety regarding conception >and the responsibilities which proceeds from the creation of progeny. Etc. >By siezing the FORM of the tabu and >not understanding its esoteric meaning, some adepts went so far as to >develop means by which the semen might be retracted, . . . >-LeGrand >I haven't looked at that book in at least a decade, and actually read it >long before that, so I can only address your summary. Fear of semen-loss >does not in fact, on the ground, derive from disinclination to conceive. >I doubt very much that it has its origin in contemplative or meditative >concerns, or even contraceptive concerns. I suspect in fact that it's the >reverse -- that is, that things became part of the contemplative/meditative >/yogic/whatnot tradition because everyone took them for granted. In what I teach / have been taught, reducing frequency of ejaculating or ceasing to ejaculate (and for women slowing or stopping menstrual cycle) is directly related to conserving 'internal energy'. Male ejaculate and female menstrual counterpart contain a portion of the intrinsic energy of the individual. As this intrinsic energy is 'spent', you age and eventually die. This energy is conserved and refined in 'alchemical' medititations and is an essential part of (fuel for or ingredient in) higher practices leading to (spiritual) immortality. Individuals who practice these energy meditations directly experience ejaculation / menstruation as energy loss (it is clearly felt). >-Tagi > "...there is textual evidence to support non-vampiric modes >of Taoist sexual activity, ... This is what I teach - I believe 'dual cultivation' is one of the more commonly used "formal terms" in English. > and of specific types of training for female >adepts that differ from the training given male adepts. Yes, outwardly different. Women learn to gain [varying degrees of] voluntary control over their menstrual cycles. But in terms of energy (drawing energy out of the sexual center to other centers of the body for 'refining') the practices are identical. > In Tibetan Buddhism, >Tantric adepts are often partners in all senses of their spouses." Ditto some sects of Taoism. -tagi >however. Also, it seems very interesting to me that we may relate the >'pouring of the heart's blood into the Cup of Babalon, the Scarlet >Woman', with the physical act of ejaculation during intercourse. Sounds more like what we call 'self intercourse' in which the male and female energies of an individual are mixed inside themselves. In the more advanced versions of this, an individual will act as female and have sex "with the universe". These processes lead to conception of one's 'spirit child' which is a vehicle of immortal practice. > This >is, in many ways, a clear recommendation to ENJOY climax, to move beyond >the withholding of orgasm (from solely the male point of view) and >enjoy the moment, the beautiful EXPERIENCE of sex. Suggested disagreement as above, also BTW: By using the raw sexual energy both men and woman can experience a non-ejaculatory / non-genital orgasm which is many times stronger and of much longer in duration (minutes or hours) than 'ordinary' orgasm. So there is no "withholding of orgasm". >I am grateful for your perspective. I shall look more carefully into >it at another time. I am not, as I mentioned previously, interested >in debates regarding history. I would only comment that some Taoist >mystical classics (Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu...) do not seem very concerned >with semen retention, and thus it would seem that the heart of the >tradition does not require this. You may know more than I here. Not all traditions of Taoism taught the sexual practices. They were strongly suppressed several/many times in Chinese history. Most stressed celibacy - i.e. conservation of the bodies energies. In article <694573211.2@blkcat.FidoNet> (Vitriol) writes: > >You're right in some ways about AC's sexism, although even that isn't really >black/white. He was in many ways a product of his time; even though he did >much to transcend that era, he had a hard time escaping from some of his >upbringing. Thus his occasional rants against Xianity in general, and Honi >Soit Qui Smellypants England (as John Ffowles put it) in particular. Thus Would it be fair to use a similar argument about Xianity? That the writers of the biblical books were products of their times, and (for instance, Paul) had a hard time fully escaping from their upbringing (in Paul's case, his sexism), although they did their best to transcend their respective eras. And hence, biblical writings should be understood in their context and not literally. This approach is (in my fairly limited experience) the standard evangelical christian approach to the bible, in Britain at any rate. Obviously the argument generalises beyond sexism to other issues upon which people like to criticise Xianity's (perceived) moral standpoint. Sorry, this isn't intended as a flame on anyone, and sorry to keep the arguments focused on Xianity, rather than paganism. -malc. A brief (I hope!) response to some remarks by From: sawyer@hubble..westford.ccur.com (George Sawyer) Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.magick Subject: Tagi/Legrand & Taoism & ejaculation was(Re: Sex Magick, Crowley, ...) Date: 7 Jan 92 16:26:38 GMT Followup-To: alt.pagan who writes "to interject some taoist perspectives to the very erudite discussion between Messrs. Tagi & LeGrand on Sex Magick, Crowley, etc." Yes, the discipline taught by Mantak & Maneewan Chia is typical of the kind of thing I brought up to this Taoist priest I mentioned talking with -- but that conversation took place in 1979, before I knew about the Chia mission (so to speak) or I would have brought that up as a concrete modern example. Of course, then the conversation would not doubt have switched back to academic or sinological mode, and I'd have gotten an earful about history, texts, documents, and so on. In response to the ever -popular musical question about ejaculation and what it means and why it should be minimized and what that means, George Sawyer reports, In what I teach / have been taught, reducing frequency of ejaculating or ceasing to ejaculate (and for women slowing or stopping menstrual cycle) is directly related to conserving 'internal energy'. Male ejaculate and female menstrual counterpart contain a portion of the intrinsic energy of the individual. As this intrinsic energy is 'spent', you age and eventually die. This energy is conserved and refined in 'alchemical' medititations and is an essential part of (fuel for or ingredient in) higher practices leading to (spiritual) immortality. Individuals who practice these energy meditations directly experience ejaculation / menstruation as energy loss (it is clearly felt). Yes, this is one of the points that differentiates what I can gather of Crowleyan practise from what I can gather of certain sorts of Taoist practise. The whole idea of the economy of the energy body is different. The specificity of manipulations of energy flow are also very different; some meditation texts and teachers in the Taoist tradition get very particular indeed about the minutiae of energy flow a