In message
weber.videotron.net>, Bexley
writes>All this is fascinating, and your explanations and patience are genuinely
>appreciated.
>
>However...
>
>"Chade"
newsguy.com> wrote in message news:1193762403.2
>75866.23980@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...>> On 30 Oct, 03:06, "Bexley" wrote:
>>> Thank you everyone for answering what must've seemed like stupid
>>>questions.
>>> All the input and thought is appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> No problem. BTW your original post wasn't see by many people because
>> your had included alt.magick.moderated in the crosspost, this stopped
>> some people from seeing it properly. In fact, almost all of the groups
>> in the crosspost list apart from alt.magick are effectively abandoned.
>> So next time you might be better off just posting to alt.magick.
>
>Thanks again!
>
>>
>>
>>> I've been reading "Summoning Spirits" by Konstantinos which includes
>>> instructions on summoning spirits to the Astral and Physical planes,
>>> Egregore creation, and some drawings of the spirits Konstantinos has
>>> communicated with.
>>>
>>> I have a few additional questions:
>>>
>>> 1 - Is he crazy? If the answer is yeas, please ignore the rest of the
>>> questions:
>>>
>>
>> Konstantinos, like Savedow, is a medieval dualist. Thats a fancy way
>> of saying his model of magick has demons as separate creatures to
>> people, with a separate place to live in. Including ideas like
>> torturing spirits to make them obey, summoning demons to physical
>> appearance and demons affecting the world 'paranormally'.
>>
>> There is no good evidence to back this up. If the demons are physical
>> why drawings and not photos?
>
>Maybe they can't be photographed!? Like Vampires! Did you think about
>that? Huh? :-)
>
Vampires can so be captured on film! Have you not watched Buffy?
>In all seriousness this did occur to me, but I'm trying to get a feeling of
>the mechanics of the process.
>
>More...
>
>>
>> It does *seem* very much that you've evoked a separate creature, it
>> feels separate and you can see it with your own eyes. However, the
>> same trance that causes the 'appearance' of the spirit is associated
>> with something called 'dissociation'. Something that Tom has written
>> about in the past, check the archive.
>
>I've been away from usenet for some time: how do I get to the archive? It
>will probably save me wasting your time.
>
>>
>> As the demons aren't physical, so can't pull your arms off, you don't
>> need to cower behind a circle. That doesn't mean that it won't be
>> easier with a circle, but as it's not a mechanical defence there isn't
>> a wrong way and a right way like in engineering.
>
>I have to bring up Konstantinos again. In "Summoning Spirits" pg 5 he
>writes: "Evocation to the physical plane is the more difficult of the two to
>master [he referred previously to Astral evocation]. When evoking an
>entity in this manner, the magician must facilitate the full materialization
>of the being on the physical plane." Note: *materialisation*. And in
>chapter eight he goes to great lengths to describe this.
>
>Reading Chapter 8, it seems that he is talking about a physical
>presence. If not, why bother?
>
>From his website:
>
>"You will learn how to perform evocations to both the astral and physical
>planes, plus opening and banishing rituals. "
>
>BTW, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just looking for some clarity
>in my own mind (no cheap-shots, please).
An awful lot of nonsense is spoken about magick. A lot more of what is
said can easily be misunderstood.
Konstantinos says he can evoke to physical manifestation, and sells
books claiming people who read them can too. However, he can only
supply drawings and not photos.
I say that you can enter a trance where spirits are visible and seem
to be separate, but you can't actually evoke them to physical
manifestation.
How could you find out who's right?
>
>However, this should explain why I asked the questions about the
>physical requirements of the triangle/room, etc; and about travelling
>Astrally/Physically.
>
>>
>> Just because an experience is subjective doesn't mean that it can't be
>> powerful, interesting, scary or affect your 'real' life. Consider the
>> demon 'paranoia'.
>
>So then, this experience might be liked to a religious experience --
>evangelical Christianity for example. The ability of the "holy spirit" to
>manifest itself in practicle -- if not physical -- form.
>
I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm not an evangelical Christian. I'm aware some claim that in their
services the holy spirit possesses people, others claim people are
possessed by demons and exorcise them in the name of the holy spirit.
I wasn't aware that any claimed to evoke the holy spirit to visible
appearance.
In the WMT the demon paranoia would normally be evoked, probably
looking scared & worried, kept separate from the magician (even though
in reality it's a representation of part of the magician's psyche).
The magician might try to talk to it to try to find out more about
what sustains his own paranoia and resolve it, get help in inducing
paranoia in someone else or whatever.
He wouldn't normally want to surrender to paranoia.
>>
>> In another post I've already mentioned Caroll Runyon. I'm not
>> associated with him, or the OTA, but I would suggest "The Book of
>> Solomon's Magick" as a more 'psychological' introduction to evocation
>> than Konstantinos.
>>
>
>I watched three of Runyon's DVD's and I think I get the picture. Of
>course they are shot under less than ideal circumstances, and I get the
>feeling some of it is "recreated" (the lighting, for example, makes the dim
>room and candles impossible).
IIRC he's said that some of it was.
The book is better.
> I have to say I was less than impressed but the "prophesy" about "a son
>of Africa" -- very generic stuff.
> But I think I get the philosophical angle a little better.
>
Although Runyon (a.k.a. Gnome), is a lot better than Konstantinos IMO.
But I don't agree with everything Gnome says.
I think such prophesy is a waste of time, other than entertainment.
Anyway, spirits can't be trusted.
>I have also been reading Waite (The Book Of Ceremonial Magic). Once I
>got my head around the Oxford House Master language, it became a
>fascinating insight into the "academic" examination of the various
>grimoires and their histories.
>
>Thank you again for your input -- very helpful.
>
>--Bex.
>
>PS -- what is the simplest most basic and elementary magical process
>one can try? Something an idiot who has no prior experience (like me)
>can do at home alone?
