Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Enlightenment vs Occult
12-22-2016, 09:12 PM (This post was last modified: 12-28-2016 10:40 AM by new_type.)
Post: #1
Greetings,

I have explored different religions, ancient sciences, occult and magick to understand how everything works, but only from a very fundamental perspectives (the basics).

I have watched this video not long ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p_yaNFSYao

If an enlightened person can harness all of the knowledge and information from meditation (from the universe) why should a person read tons of books and try to find the hidden knowledge, if it is possible to harness it from the meditation?

Why should the seeker of truth read literaly hundreds of books, practise different rituals, do different excersises, etc.., if meditation can give answers to all of the questions? Why not to focus solely on this practise? And if knowledge and understanding needed, it can be found in Buddhism. And not in complicated Buddhist terms, but in simple understanding.
Buddhists reach the same enlightenment, but what they are doing is just practising and trying to understand by the means of meditation.

Also, every magician seeks enlightenment, no metter how many books they have read and rituals practised.
So why study occult, magick, ancient sciences, etc.. if it might be better to focus only on meditation and reaching enlightenment?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-23-2016, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 12-23-2016 02:15 AM by SirenSong.)
Post: #2
I checked out the first 10 minutes of the video, nice of you to share. With regard to your questions:

1. I don't think that there is a "should" involved, unless you are strictly following the instruction of a mentor on your path and they are dictating what it is that you read, work with and expose yourself to.

2. Can you define what you mean by "the seeker of truth"? I don't want to make assumptions as to what you are referring to there before answering the question.

3. There are many factors that guide and determine a person's path toward what you are calling "enlightenment". Cultural influences, age, already existing religious conditioning or embedded responses from childhood that limit or corral perspective, alternate learning styles (auditory learner, visual learner, mechanical learner), peer groups, etc; really the list could go on and on.

Your statement, although I do understand the point that you are trying to make, is like saying, "You can live by just eating french fries 3 times a day, everyday for the rest of your life, so why ever eat anything else?" IMO that sounds awful, and although I could do just that.....why would I ever want to? As my perspective evolves, so do my interests, my learning styles, my available time to dedicate to study and practice, as well as the method through which I want to interact with the information. Freedom and fluidity in subject matter/practice/application is all part of the pursuit for me, I want to encounter whatever I want, whenever I want, and apply it as I see fit for my goals to ensure a well-rounded and balanced understanding. I certainly will not meet those goals by eating just french fries, 3 times a day for the rest of my days.

"I have no fear of depths and a great fear of shallow living" ~ A. N.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-23-2016, 02:54 AM (This post was last modified: 12-23-2016 02:56 AM by travsha.)
Post: #3
(12-22-2016 09:12 PM)new_type Wrote:  An enlightened person can harness all of the knowledge and information from meditation (from the universe). That is stated in this video (the third eye and also it is stated about recieving any amount of knowledge from cosmos), Aliester Crowley was saying that he has seen the whole history of mankind just in one hour of meditation (Liber Aleph) and that can be also founed in other different sources.
Dont believe everything people tell you. A lot of people make things up, and a lot of people mistake their fantasies for reality.

Looking at Crowley for example it is hard to imagine him really seeing the whole history of mankind because if he had I imagine he would have been much smarter and more in tune then he was. In reality he went through many divorces, made and then lost numerous fortunes, was addicted to numerous drugs.... Basically everything about his life suggests that his practice was just a way to magnify and embrace his ego trip.

A lot of people like to make claims about what meditation or enlightenment will do.... But claims are meaningless without proof. Meditation is powerful, but I also gotta point out that there are no perfect people or enlightened perfect beings walking around the earth right now. Everyone has faults and make mistakes.

In some traditions they view enlightenment as this perfected state.... In other traditions they view it as a never ending process - every time you learn something you are enlightened by it. I prefer the second definition myself - much more accurate I think. Also more humble which I think can take you far.

Quote:So here is the question:
Why should a person read tons of books and try to find the hidden knowledge, if it is possible to harness it from the meditation?
The path to enlightenment is described in this video and it is so simple (by the way, the same path is described in Aliester Crowley's book "The Master of the Temple")..
So why should the seeker of truth read literaly hundreds of books, practise different rituals, do different excersises, etc.., if meditation from the video can give answers to all of the questions? Why not to focus solely on this practise? And if knowledge and understanding needed, it can be found in Buddhism. And not in complicated Buddhist terms, but in simple understanding.
Buddhists reach the same enlightenment, but what they are doing is just practising and trying to understand by the means of meditation.
I wouldnt recommend mastering many books - people that usually try often dont go very deep in their practice. Usually people who go deepest are either the ones who only focus on a book or two, or who have no books.... Personally - I read for inspiration and for fun, but I dont expect to find any secrets in books. Books selling secrets are really selling fantasies.

Some books focus on teaching a practice. Those are the best. To me that is the only necessary part of a spiritual tradition to teach - the practice. I dont care about stories or cosmology because each tradition contradicts each other and it is just someone telling you about it - if you can experience it and if they dont have proof then the claims are meaningless. If they have evidence to back the claims or if you can really experience these things and verify they arent fantasy - well that is different and in that case you dont need the stories anymore because you can just experience things for yourself or look at the evidence directly.

To me, the practice is the only important part. I personally found meditation boring and had other goals that arent served by meditation - so I have a different practice. The practices you choose to be focus on can be different for each person based on their goals and what resonates or works best for them.

Quote:Also, every magician seeks enlightenment, no metter how many books they have read and rituals practised.
So why study occult, magick, ancient sciences, etc.. if it might be better to focus only on meditation and reaching enlightenment?

Not all people practicing magic want enlightenment. Many think magic is a short cut or source to power over others or over life.... Look at all the threads on this forum about trapping women with spells or getting rich quick - nothing enlightened about it....

(12-23-2016 02:14 AM)SirenSong Wrote:  I checked out the first 10 minutes of the video, nice of you to share. With regard to your questions:

1. I don't think that there is a "should" involved, unless you are strictly following the instruction of a mentor on your path and they are dictating what it is that you read, work with and expose yourself to.

2. Can you define what you mean by "the seeker of truth"? I don't want to make assumptions as to what you are referring to there before answering the question.

3. There are many factors that guide and determine a person's path toward what you are calling "enlightenment". Cultural influences, age, already existing religious conditioning or embedded responses from childhood that limit or corral perspective, alternate learning styles (auditory learner, visual learner, mechanical learner), peer groups, etc; really the list could go on and on.

Your statement, although I do understand the point that you are trying to make, is like saying, "You can live by just eating french fries 3 times a day, everyday for the rest of your life, so why ever eat anything else?" IMO that sounds awful, and although I could do just that.....why would I ever want to? As my perspective evolves, so do my interests, my learning styles, my available time to dedicate to study and practice, as well as the method through which I want to interact with the information. Freedom and fluidity in subject matter/practice/application is all part of the pursuit for me, I want to encounter whatever I want, whenever I want, and apply it as I see fit for my goals to ensure a well-rounded and balanced understanding. I certainly will not meet those goals by eating just french fries, 3 times a day for the rest of my days.

Nice and thoughtful SirenSong.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-23-2016, 07:07 AM
Post: #4
(12-23-2016 02:54 AM)travsha Wrote:  
(12-22-2016 09:12 PM)new_type Wrote:  An enlightened person can harness all of the knowledge and information from meditation (from the universe). That is stated in this video (the third eye and also it is stated about recieving any amount of knowledge from cosmos), Aliester Crowley was saying that he has seen the whole history of mankind just in one hour of meditation (Liber Aleph) and that can be also founed in other different sources.
Dont believe everything people tell you. A lot of people make things up, and a lot of people mistake their fantasies for reality.

Looking at Crowley for example it is hard to imagine him really seeing the whole history of mankind because if he had I imagine he would have been much smarter and more in tune then he was. In reality he went through many divorces, made and then lost numerous fortunes, was addicted to numerous drugs.... Basically everything about his life suggests that his practice was just a way to magnify and embrace his ego trip.

A lot of people like to make claims about what meditation or enlightenment will do.... But claims are meaningless without proof. Meditation is powerful, but I also gotta point out that there are no perfect people or enlightened perfect beings walking around the earth right now. Everyone has faults and make mistakes.

In some traditions they view enlightenment as this perfected state.... In other traditions they view it as a never ending process - every time you learn something you are enlightened by it. I prefer the second definition myself - much more accurate I think. Also more humble which I think can take you far.

Quote:So here is the question:
Why should a person read tons of books and try to find the hidden knowledge, if it is possible to harness it from the meditation?
The path to enlightenment is described in this video and it is so simple (by the way, the same path is described in Aliester Crowley's book "The Master of the Temple")..
So why should the seeker of truth read literaly hundreds of books, practise different rituals, do different excersises, etc.., if meditation from the video can give answers to all of the questions? Why not to focus solely on this practise? And if knowledge and understanding needed, it can be found in Buddhism. And not in complicated Buddhist terms, but in simple understanding.
Buddhists reach the same enlightenment, but what they are doing is just practising and trying to understand by the means of meditation.
I wouldnt recommend mastering many books - people that usually try often dont go very deep in their practice. Usually people who go deepest are either the ones who only focus on a book or two, or who have no books.... Personally - I read for inspiration and for fun, but I dont expect to find any secrets in books. Books selling secrets are really selling fantasies.

Some books focus on teaching a practice. Those are the best. To me that is the only necessary part of a spiritual tradition to teach - the practice. I dont care about stories or cosmology because each tradition contradicts each other and it is just someone telling you about it - if you can experience it and if they dont have proof then the claims are meaningless. If they have evidence to back the claims or if you can really experience these things and verify they arent fantasy - well that is different and in that case you dont need the stories anymore because you can just experience things for yourself or look at the evidence directly.

To me, the practice is the only important part. I personally found meditation boring and had other goals that arent served by meditation - so I have a different practice. The practices you choose to be focus on can be different for each person based on their goals and what resonates or works best for them.

Quote:Also, every magician seeks enlightenment, no metter how many books they have read and rituals practised.
So why study occult, magick, ancient sciences, etc.. if it might be better to focus only on meditation and reaching enlightenment?

Not all people practicing magic want enlightenment. Many think magic is a short cut or source to power over others or over life.... Look at all the threads on this forum about trapping women with spells or getting rich quick - nothing enlightened about it....

(12-23-2016 02:14 AM)SirenSong Wrote:  I checked out the first 10 minutes of the video, nice of you to share. With regard to your questions:

1. I don't think that there is a "should" involved, unless you are strictly following the instruction of a mentor on your path and they are dictating what it is that you read, work with and expose yourself to.

2. Can you define what you mean by "the seeker of truth"? I don't want to make assumptions as to what you are referring to there before answering the question.

3. There are many factors that guide and determine a person's path toward what you are calling "enlightenment". Cultural influences, age, already existing religious conditioning or embedded responses from childhood that limit or corral perspective, alternate learning styles (auditory learner, visual learner, mechanical learner), peer groups, etc; really the list could go on and on.

Your statement, although I do understand the point that you are trying to make, is like saying, "You can live by just eating french fries 3 times a day, everyday for the rest of your life, so why ever eat anything else?" IMO that sounds awful, and although I could do just that.....why would I ever want to? As my perspective evolves, so do my interests, my learning styles, my available time to dedicate to study and practice, as well as the method through which I want to interact with the information. Freedom and fluidity in subject matter/practice/application is all part of the pursuit for me, I want to encounter whatever I want, whenever I want, and apply it as I see fit for my goals to ensure a well-rounded and balanced understanding. I certainly will not meet those goals by eating just french fries, 3 times a day for the rest of my days.

Nice and thoughtful SirenSong.
Right on about Crowley..He did amazing things bringing the occult into modern ages but He was mostly riding the coat tails of real mages and a great promo master who was very well read, He was the EA Koetting of our grandfathers time.

Http://Arcanumtarotmagick.com
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMXvPfa...JzHQSOR0lg
To KNOW, To DARE, To WILL, TO KEEP SILENCE-such are the four words of the Magus! Eliphas Levi.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-23-2016, 07:49 AM (This post was last modified: 12-23-2016 08:32 AM by new_type.)
Post: #5
(12-23-2016 02:14 AM)SirenSong Wrote:  I checked out the first 10 minutes of the video, nice of you to share. With regard to your questions:

1. I don't think that there is a "should" involved, unless you are strictly following the instruction of a mentor on your path and they are dictating what it is that you read, work with and expose yourself to.

2. Can you define what you mean by "the seeker of truth"? I don't want to make assumptions as to what you are referring to there before answering the question.

3. There are many factors that guide and determine a person's path toward what you are calling "enlightenment". Cultural influences, age, already existing religious conditioning or embedded responses from childhood that limit or corral perspective, alternate learning styles (auditory learner, visual learner, mechanical learner), peer groups, etc; really the list could go on and on.

Your statement, although I do understand the point that you are trying to make, is like saying, "You can live by just eating french fries 3 times a day, everyday for the rest of your life, so why ever eat anything else?" IMO that sounds awful, and although I could do just that.....why would I ever want to? As my perspective evolves, so do my interests, my learning styles, my available time to dedicate to study and practice, as well as the method through which I want to interact with the information. Freedom and fluidity in subject matter/practice/application is all part of the pursuit for me, I want to encounter whatever I want, whenever I want, and apply it as I see fit for my goals to ensure a well-rounded and balanced understanding. I certainly will not meet those goals by eating just french fries, 3 times a day for the rest of my days.

Thank you for your answer, SirenSong.

1. It is not about instructions, but about the things needed for spiritual self development. Things, that every seeker of truth should learn.

2. Seeker of truth is a person who has dedicated his life to understand it. To evolve spiritually. To learn the hidden knowledge (occult) and to find out how this life works. The one, who would not believe lies, but would prefer the sacred knowledge.

3. Well, in this video the nature of enlightenment is actually described very good and the technique needed to achieve it. So at first, I dont actually understand why you say "what you are calling "enlightenment"", because that is not my definition. And secondly, I dont understand why you say that a lot of factors play a role in enlightenment, when all that is needed is simply to enter meditation through the technique in this video.

Well, an example with french fries is not, what I have meant.
It is just the fact, that enlightenment gives you access to the new possibilities which will change your life forever, providing knowledge and understanding. Enlightenment will highly improve all of the magickal practises. So basically it is better to be an Enlightened Arch Mage, than to be a kid playing with rituals.


Thank you for your reply, travsha.

(12-23-2016 02:54 AM)travsha Wrote:  Dont believe everything people tell you. A lot of people make things up, and a lot of people mistake their fantasies for reality.
As I have said before, I have reasons to be sure, that this video holds the truth. It would be hard and pretty long to describe it, so I wont.
I dont believe or deny anything in this world. I try to find knowledge and understanding through experience for myself.


(12-23-2016 02:54 AM)travsha Wrote:  Looking at Crowley for example it is hard to imagine him really seeing the whole history of mankind because if he had I imagine he would have been much smarter and more in tune then he was. In reality he went through many divorces, made and then lost numerous fortunes, was addicted to numerous drugs.... Basically everything about his life suggests that his practice was just a way to magnify and embrace his ego trip.
Speaking, about Crowley, I would say, that I dont actually believe the facts about his history, that are stated in the internet. Some of them are most likely to be made up.
I consider him being a very wise person for the things, he wrote.

(12-23-2016 02:54 AM)travsha Wrote:  In some traditions they view enlightenment as this perfected state.... In other traditions they view it as a never ending process - every time you learn something you are enlightened by it. I prefer the second definition myself - much more accurate I think. Also more humble which I think can take you far.
About the definition, I see enlightenment as this state, where one experiences light. So, to say, as in the video.

(12-23-2016 02:54 AM)travsha Wrote:  I wouldnt recommend mastering many books - people that usually try often dont go very deep in their practice. Usually people who go deepest are either the ones who only focus on a book or two, or who have no books.... Personally - I read for inspiration and for fun, but I dont expect to find any secrets in books. Books selling secrets are really selling fantasies.

Some books focus on teaching a practice. Those are the best. To me that is the only necessary part of a spiritual tradition to teach - the practice. I dont care about stories or cosmology because each tradition contradicts each other and it is just someone telling you about it - if you can experience it and if they dont have proof then the claims are meaningless. If they have evidence to back the claims or if you can really experience these things and verify they arent fantasy - well that is different and in that case you dont need the stories anymore because you can just experience things for yourself or look at the evidence directly.
Well I do agree with that (with the fact, that it might be better to read a few books and master and practise them, then to read tons of books). And I have heard the same from pretty smart people with understanding. It is just that fact, that the one, who tries to understand occult in all of it's glory should read at least one book about: alchemy, astrology, kabbalah, rosecrusian philosophy, vampirism, few books with techniques for practise (because a person should find techniques that suit him the most, having something to choose from. Also because there are different techniques for different results (trance state, lucid dreaming, rituals, energy work, etc...)), a book about Astral realm and projection into it (ex Astral Dynamics). Also one should read all of the Bible and works of such famous occultists, such as Crowley, John Dee, Regardie, because there is truth in those texts.

And also speaking about evidence... I have said that it might be important to read hundreds of books, to gain better understanding of the subject and by the means of that to find evidence that proves the material to you. Also there are a lot of lies, and sometimes more information is needed to be able to spot those lies within the books. So in this case it can be actually better to read few books from every topic from the above. What do you think?

(12-23-2016 02:54 AM)travsha Wrote:  Not all people practicing magic want enlightenment. Many think magic is a short cut or source to power over others or over life.... Look at all the threads on this forum about trapping women with spells or getting rich quick - nothing enlightened about it....
And the last thing. Those who learn magick just to get better in their daily lives are not on the path of spiritual development, so I dont consider them. The true mage is a person, that longs for perfection and mastering of the self, for evolution and development. But not for some miserable daily assistance by the powers from the beyond.

(12-23-2016 07:07 AM)Magickinqu Wrote:  Right on about Crowley..He did amazing things bringing the occult into modern ages but He was mostly riding the coat tails of real mages and a great promo master who was very well read, He was the EA Koetting of our grandfathers time.

I would not put Koetting and Crowley on the same level by any means.
Crowley is a wise and enlightened person, when Koetting is just a kid, who doesnt even know what he is doing. He is a perfect example of the "magick for the wrong reasons" statement.

Can I ask you please to tell me about those "real mages"? Who are they?
I respect Crowley, so if there is someone, who can be considered as a "better" mage, I cant wait to hear about him.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-24-2016, 04:12 AM
Post: #6
(12-23-2016 07:49 AM)new_type Wrote:  Speaking, about Crowley, I would say, that I dont actually believe the facts about his history, that are stated in the internet. Some of them are most likely to be made up.
I consider him being a very wise person for the things, he wrote.
You can read about him from his closest friends and also from his personal writings and you will see that all the stories basically agree. I can think of no reason to think that stories about him are fake or that he was wise. Everything he wrote made him seem like he was just full of himself and the opposite of enlightened to me.

Quote:
(12-23-2016 02:54 AM)travsha Wrote:  I wouldnt recommend mastering many books - people that usually try often dont go very deep in their practice. Usually people who go deepest are either the ones who only focus on a book or two, or who have no books.... Personally - I read for inspiration and for fun, but I dont expect to find any secrets in books. Books selling secrets are really selling fantasies.

Some books focus on teaching a practice. Those are the best. To me that is the only necessary part of a spiritual tradition to teach - the practice. I dont care about stories or cosmology because each tradition contradicts each other and it is just someone telling you about it - if you can experience it and if they dont have proof then the claims are meaningless. If they have evidence to back the claims or if you can really experience these things and verify they arent fantasy - well that is different and in that case you dont need the stories anymore because you can just experience things for yourself or look at the evidence directly.
Well I do agree with that (with the fact, that it might be better to read a few books and master and practise them, then to read tons of books). And I have heard the same from pretty smart people with understanding. It is just that fact, that the one, who tries to understand occult in all of it's glory should read at least one book about: alchemy, astrology, kabbalah, rosecrusian philosophy, vampirism, few books with techniques for practise (because a person should find techniques that suit him the most, having something to choose from. Also because there are different techniques for different results (trance state, lucid dreaming, rituals, energy work, etc...)), a book about Astral realm and projection into it (ex Astral Dynamics). Also one should read all of the Bible and works of such famous occultists, such as Crowley, John Dee, Regardie, because there is truth in those texts.
All the books you said people should read one of.... I would say most people could skip unless they want to waste their time. Almost no one practices alchemy these days, so that is only fitting if you want to specifically practice alchemy. Astrology and Kabbalah are likewise also optional - I dont use either. Rosecrucian is a waste of time in my experience and mostly watered down new age occult.... Vampirism - no need for anyone to read about unless its for entertainment. I recommend skipping the bible as I consider it mostly evil and all fantasy.... I dont recommend any books written by Golden Dawn members like Crowley or Regardie as I see it as a incomplete and watered down system that tried to mix every other system into one and in the process lost the most important parts of those systems - I got really into Golden Dawn for a while and consider it one of the worst wastes of my time ever.

Books on technique or practice are good though, and if you enjoy them maybe some inspirational philosophy type books..... If you are specifically into Kabbalah or alchemy then books on those subjects are okay, but if you arent specifically into those traditions, then no point reading about them really. I will say though - Golden Dawn and Theosophical Society and Rosecrucians wrote the worst books on Kabbalah and Alchemy ever and watered down or altered the teachings so heavily that I wouldnt really consider what they taught as Kabbalah to really be Kabbalah anymore....

Quote:
(12-23-2016 02:54 AM)travsha Wrote:  Not all people practicing magic want enlightenment. Many think magic is a short cut or source to power over others or over life.... Look at all the threads on this forum about trapping women with spells or getting rich quick - nothing enlightened about it....
And the last thing. Those who learn magick just to get better in their daily lives are not on the path of spiritual development, so I dont consider them. The true mage is a person, that longs for perfection and mastering of the self, for evolution and development. But not for some miserable daily assistance by the powers from the beyond.
I would disagree. I think people can use these powers to help others and uplift the world around them, and in many ways that might be even more noble then thinking you are the master of the universe and living your perfect state. I personally think that perfection isnt a state but a constant process that never ends.
Quote:
(12-23-2016 07:07 AM)Magickinqu Wrote:  Right on about Crowley..He did amazing things bringing the occult into modern ages but He was mostly riding the coat tails of real mages and a great promo master who was very well read, He was the EA Koetting of our grandfathers time.

I would not put Koetting and Crowley on the same level by any means.
Crowley is a wise and enlightened person, when Koetting is just a kid, who doesnt even know what he is doing. He is a perfect example of the "magick for the wrong reasons" statement.

Can I ask you please to tell me about those "real mages"? Who are they?
I respect Crowley, so if there is someone, who can be considered as a "better" mage, I cant wait to hear about him.
I would say Koetting and Crowley are close to similar. Crowley was a little more original but both of them I would consider to be more ego-maniacs and sales men more then magicians. Both addicted to drugs. Both with many of the same life issues and trying to create the same image about being the all powerful bad boy celebrity...

Real magicians - people making a difference in the world around them. I meet them all the time and most of them are not famous. When I see a shaman cure someones epilepsy or cancer by singing to them - I see a magician. When I see someone like Crowley telling a lot of wild stories and teaching fake Kabbalah I see a pretender....

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-24-2016, 04:13 AM (This post was last modified: 12-24-2016 04:17 AM by The Artis Magistra.)
Post: #7
I agree with what travsha wrote here at the end:

"Real magicians - people making a difference in the world around them. I meet them all the time and most of them are not famous. When I see a shaman cure someones epilepsy or cancer by singing to them - I see a magician. When I see someone like Crowley telling a lot of wild stories and teaching fake Kabbalah I see a pretender"

The reason I agree with this is because its the one that qualifies me. Regardless of my funny behavior on this website, all I do every day is go around helping myself and others and trying to make a positive difference in my world and in the lives of anyone or anything (animals, plants, whatever, rocks, books, things on the floor) I encounter or that I'm brought to.

The reason I mention this is only to try to motivate others to try ardently to be "real magicians", who are all about change for the better, and making things good all around and better and the best they can be and not giving up on that or else they've really "lost the magic" and become "disenchanted".
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-24-2016, 10:40 PM
Post: #8
There is a good and bad point to it. The bad point is the language. So a curandero MIGHT refer to his work as a magia Blanca, or instead say el don (the healing gift) comes from God. Both of these things as cosmologically acceptable, but they aren't the role of the magician. So if we are to use a good example of a Mayan trickster such as Ajitz, he clearly is a subversive character. A magician. Not a healer persay. And travsha has never physically seen a shaman heal someone. He has seen Qero medicine people heal people, curanderos heal people. But not a shaman.
And in traditional cultures, they don't conflate magico-religious community based healing and ritual with magical practice. I.e. Sorcery. It's just not the case, in any version, anthropological or oral tradition. There is a clear delineation between the two people. And while some of course have overlapping practices, the practices are not identical.
A sorcerer works on want/power, a healer works to heal/remedy. And magico-religious ritual is a conceit of all religions. Regardless of western or non western, church based or community based. The distinction isn't even up for discussion. There are nuns who heal people miraculously both living and in history. They aren't either shamans or magicians. So again the good points get lost in the co option and re narrativasation of history. Of indigenous peoples as fantasy props and noble savages. This is highly problematic.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2016, 03:40 AM (This post was last modified: 12-25-2016 03:40 AM by travsha.)
Post: #9
(12-24-2016 10:40 PM)JintheNinja Wrote:  There is a good and bad point to it. The bad point is the language. So a curandero MIGHT refer to his work as a magia Blanca, or instead say el don (the healing gift) comes from God. Both of these things as cosmologically acceptable, but they aren't the role of the magician. So if we are to use a good example of a Mayan trickster such as Ajitz, he clearly is a subversive character. A magician. Not a healer persay. And travsha has never physically seen a shaman heal someone. He has seen Qero medicine people heal people, curanderos heal people. But not a shaman.
How would you know what I have or havent seen? You sure do think highly of yourself to assume you know everything about complete strangers.....

I have seen many different types of healers work on people and some of them were shamans so your claims are of course incorrect and weird.

I know many magicians who do healing work, and I think by definition anyone doing any kind of magic at all can be a magician, not only people doing specific types of magic. Seen people do healing work by summoning demons from Goetia as well - they are certainly magicians but still doing healing. And I have seen curanderos make love potions or business luck potions - certainly magic.

Your narrowminded views seem to disregard reality.

Quote:And in traditional cultures, they don't conflate magico-religious community based healing and ritual with magical practice. I.e. Sorcery. It's just not the case, in any version, anthropological or oral tradition. There is a clear delineation between the two people. And while some of course have overlapping practices, the practices are not identical.
A sorcerer works on want/power, a healer works to heal/remedy. And magico-religious ritual is a conceit of all religions. Regardless of western or non western, church based or community based. The distinction isn't even up for discussion. There are nuns who heal people miraculously both living and in history. They aren't either shamans or magicians. So again the good points get lost in the co option and re narrativasation of history. Of indigenous peoples as fantasy props and noble savages. This is highly problematic.
There is a lot more cross-over then you pretend. Many people doing healing also practice other magic, and if you are using magic to heal it is still magic.

Magician is a very vague term. Basically means someone doing magic. There can be hundreds of different types of magicians in that category I would assume. Shaman is a very specific type of healer - most healers and most magicians are not shamans, but I would say all shamans are healers and most if not all could probably be considered magicians (though shaman might be a more specific and accurate name). Nuns of course are not shamans - many healers are not shamans, as shamans are a very specific type of healer.

You can keep making up your own definitions for everything, but I am going to stick to the commonly used and accepted definitions because I dont need to change words.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2016, 04:32 AM
Post: #10
(12-24-2016 10:40 PM)JintheNinja Wrote:  There is a good and bad point to it. The bad point is the language. So a curandero MIGHT refer to his work as a magia Blanca, or instead say el don (the healing gift) comes from God. Both of these things as cosmologically acceptable, but they aren't the role of the magician. So if we are to use a good example of a Mayan trickster such as Ajitz, he clearly is a subversive character. A magician. Not a healer persay. And travsha has never physically seen a shaman heal someone. He has seen Qero medicine people heal people, curanderos heal people. But not a shaman.
And in traditional cultures, they don't conflate magico-religious community based healing and ritual with magical practice. I.e. Sorcery. It's just not the case, in any version, anthropological or oral tradition. There is a clear delineation between the two people. And while some of course have overlapping practices, the practices are not identical.
A sorcerer works on want/power, a healer works to heal/remedy. And magico-religious ritual is a conceit of all religions. Regardless of western or non western, church based or community based. The distinction isn't even up for discussion. There are nuns who heal people miraculously both living and in history. They aren't either shamans or magicians. So again the good points get lost in the co option and re narrativasation of history. Of indigenous peoples as fantasy props and noble savages. This is highly problematic.

All that matters to me is telling people or tricking people into being "good" which is another word for "useful seeming in some way". Rhetoric, for motivational purposes, for me and mine, which is also "you and yours" and all things "in range".

Being devoid of everything, like an empty shell of a creature, if anyone will give me ear, they will hear an ocean to seduce their senses.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Steps to Spiritual Enlightenment. Is It Scary? Poiel 43 1,116 04-23-2017 10:12 PM
Last Post: Poiel
  Chakras: Gateways Toward Enlightenment Shadow 27 4,685 11-29-2015 01:19 PM
Last Post: Harvey

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)