Decided to share a couple of old posts I made on Occultism while taking on a more rationale pov. Each post is separated in bold:
A look into Psychic Vampyrism part 1
Throughout mainstream media, psychic vampires have been consistently portrayed as completely toxic and malignantly narcissistic individuals who feed off of the energy (mostly the joys) of others surrounding them while maintaining a steady supply of hosts by exploiting mostly emotional based vulnerabilities in others, but would such a premise be reasonably practical for a psychic vampire?
If we assume psychic vampires drain the energy out of others, then we must first ask what sort of energy it is they take from others and if there are limitations as to their methods and types. If we presume for the sake of the proposition, that psychic vampires are only capable of sucking up energy from upbeat emotions such as joy and affection, then the result of a feeding should be a sensation of either a numbing of said emotions or an increase in the inverse. As such psychic vampires would appear to be killjoys, yet would this explain why their prey never attempts to get away?
It is human nature to try and get out of a relationship that only presents drawbacks with no reward, not even being ignored. So if a psychic vampire were to only dampen the spirits of those around them, they would A) start to alienate people and B) kill off their energy supply (this is once again assuming there's some sort of limitation to the energy they can take in)
The effects of a feeding - psychic vampyrism part 2
One common description of a vampyric feeding is that it leaves the target feeling drained. Based on a couple of vampyric communities this can be negated by taking a lesser amount of energy thus as to not be detected. Detection of psychic vampyrism may also depend on the type of energy being drained. Absorption of positive based energy will obviously get one called out as a psychic vampire, but would the same hold true for one who feeds off of negativity?
If we assume psychic vampires must feed off of others, then we should ask ourselves what would be a practical means of feeding without getting detected? One answer that very few have put forth online is that to avoid detection, psychic vampires feed off of negativity. This claim is different from one who states psychic vampires cause negativity as by feeding on the negative energy, the host's energy should balance out. By eating away at the negative energy in a host, this should cause them to feel better and hence allow the psychic vampires to be mistaken as a healer. There is a problem with this proposal though. If a psychic vampire can heal another by taking in their negative energy, how would they be able to maintain this steady supply assuming they can only take in one sort of psychic energy?
Perhaps we should reexamine our initial assumptions about the feeding habits of psychic vampires. Maybe instead of only being able to feed on one sort of energy they can feed on several. Maybe the tenant that psychic vampires need consent to feed isn't entirely accurate (a topic for another day). Perhaps psychic vampires aren't just limited to human targets. Whatever the case may be, we still have a lot to learn about the nature of their feeding and their relationship with their hosts.
Just how selfless are empaths really?
Empaths according to the current New Age movement are individuals capable of not only sensing but feeling your emotions as well and want nothing better than to spread love and compassion... though should we believe this claim?
Let us assume that the current New Age definition of empaths is completely accurate, that not only do they sense the emotions of others but they take them in as well. If this is correct, then it would it would make sense for them to want to help you, yes?
Though empaths of the current New Age claim love and self improvement for all is their ambition, why is it that instead of decreasing the amount of people who go for them, they increase incoming traffic while few seemingly ever leave? Sure, perhaps the world has gotten more rotten and that might explain why people flock to the current New Age empaths, but it doesn't explain why those who seek them out generally don't try to leave.
Vampire Empath
If we take that empathy when broken down into its simplest components is the ability to sense the emotional energy of others, then rather having psychic vampires being contrasted with empaths it might be more accurate to say some psychic vampires may in fact be empaths.
The ability to sense another's emotions while generally lauded as a skill for the kind hearted isn't something that's limited to those without ulterior intentions. According to a post on the Queendom blog, Machiavellians scored around a 73 for empathy. To put that simply, as the blog states "Empathy is said to precede compassion or acts of kindness, but the ability to understand the feelings of others can also be used with ill-intent, and Machiavellians know this."
[Dark side of empathy
Just as some empaths may use their skills for malice, so we ought to conclude likewise with vampires who gain energy from the emotions of others. After all, the ability to sense a target's emotions would prove useful to those who feed off of emotion, whether directed towards them or not, higher or lower vibration.
In the end, there's nothing preventing an empath from being truly malicious at heart and likewise even psychic and or empathic Vampyrism can be used for healing others.
How the concept of an empath has changed over time - Empaths Part 2
In the occult world, an empath is generally defined as someone who has empathy or either a psychic like ability to not only detect but also take on another's emotions as their own or has a rather enhanced recognition of others emotions as well as a susceptibility to taking their emotions as their own. Furthermore, if you want to be specific with how empathy tends to be portrayed by the current New Age, it is not enough to be able to sense and feel another's emotions. You also have to have a sense of compassion or irresistible desire to help others, though is the current understanding of empathy and thus empaths limited?
Of what we know about the modern portrayal of an empath, our earliest records of an occupation that most closely resembles how the empath is portrayed today are the soothsayers... correction. Since healers and empaths tend to get conflated with each other, our earliest records of what an empath is would either be a soothsayer or a witch doctor. Either way the purpose of either occupation was to address the emotional concerns of their clients. Yes, soothsayers also worked on the principle of telling the future in regards to a question a client asks about themselves whereas a witch doctor addresses the spiritual ailments which are usually rooted somewhere in the client's psyche. Unlike the modern portrayal of the empath however, one didn't need to feel compassion for another to be a soothsayer and likewise although greatly helpful, being able to feel another's emotions wasn't required to be a witch doctor. So in a way, the modern concept of the empath has somewhat become more specific and yet there is still something that makes this empathy limiting.
At some point in time, whether it was before or after the initiation of the modern New Agers concept of the empath, the field of psychology also started taking a look into empathy and empaths. Like the current New Agers, psychologists view empathy and thus empaths as those who's abilities rely solely around the emotions of others. The difference however is that benevolence is not a prerequisite for being an empath and unlike how the current New Age classifies empaths, in psychology empaths aren't classified as to either their client or target but rather to how they are able to deduce another's emotional state of being. As a result, in psychology there are 3 main types of empaths; affective, cognitive and somatic. Affective empaths are able to feel another's emotions as the result of emotional contagions although they may not necessarily be able to identify exactly what feeling the target is having at based on the physiological changes that occur throughout the body during a notable period of emotional intensity. None of the psychological definitions of empath require them to have benevolence for another although if you were to compare the 3, affective empaths would have the most reason to want to help others as their emotional state is dependent on others whereas cognitive empaths would not as not only are their emotional state independent of others, but their physiological states remain unaffected.
The reliability of a True Name
When it comes to summoning otherworldly entities here, a common method to ensure either loyalty or obedience from the ones summoned is to at the very least know their true name (that and being able to speak or pronounce it in the first place), but have you ever wondered how we came to such a conclusion in the first place and whether our sources are reliable?
In the traditional arts of summoning, it is said that to know the true name of a summoned entity is to allow you complete control over it. Whether this means just saying their true name (and properly as is generally the case) is enough or using their true name as a guideline to instill control may vary upon tradition, but it's said that just knowing and being able to pronounce said true name is good enough. Our first documented reports of such a tradition came from grimoires detailing how to summon and control demons (although if you want to get technical, we either got this notion of having knowledge of another's true name is power either from Greek, Jewish or Assyrian mythology). One such grimoire, the Keys of Solomon notes a specific step of actions and prerequisites that must be taken in order to summon and control a specific demon, and knowing it's true name is part of it. How did Solomon know this though?
Regarding the Keys of Solomon:
According to the Keys of Solomon, just knowing a demon's True Name wasn't enough to ensure it wouldn't try to harm you. When calling forth an entity from another plane, it was typical for the summoner to stand in the middle of various inscriptions so as to protect themselves from that which they were summoning. Having the True Name of the entity they wished to summon was like pinging a number, though texts do indicate one major point of contention summoners had to contend with was unwanted guests posing as the one called for.
Subjugation - True Name Part 2
From a traditional standpoint, having the true name of the entity you wanted to summon was used primarily to ping a specific recipient in the spirit realm. How then were the conjurers able to control their summons?
Based on a couple of treaties in summoning demons, most notably from either the Keys of Solomon or Grimorium Verum, supposing the conjurers manages to summon the specific entity or entities (rare as it might be), the conjurers couldn't simply start commanding them around, no. Usually in order to get a summon to do something you had to provide it with something in return for its services. Now suppose that no matter the deal that is offered, the summon entity refuses to do the task you set out for it. Could you still force them to comply? From a traditional standpoint, yes. To get a rebellious spirit to comply, you would simply threaten them and you would do this by calling out and referencing their True Name. Of course since a couple of the entities summoned were known to have the power of illusion, they could also feign compliance as well.
By the way, you may have recalled in a previous post, summoners were noted to stand in the middle of various inscriptions to protect themselves while summoning. Well even when the targeted summon was successfully called, the conjurer was not to leave their circle of protection until they could get the summon to swear fealty on their name. The easiest way to do this of course was to offer it a deal and then threaten it if it didn't comply by stating it's true name. If the conjurer were to leave the magick circle anytime before this happened (or just whenever any entity had been summoned) they ran the risk of assault, possible spirit possession and even death. Oh, and let's not forget some of the summons were well skilled in the art of illusion, so even hearing an oath of loyalty wasn't enough for all of them.
No Name - True Name Part 3
In order for true name magick to work, the target would obviously have to have a true name but what would happen if they did not?
Before we begin we should temporarily discuss the difference between one's birth name and true name. Your birth name is obviously the name that was given to you upon birth. Your true name however, is a name which is supposed to symbolize and represent who you are and as such your birth name and true name need not be the same. Case in point, people born without any names (yes, it is possible although whether or not it's legal is another issue). If someone is born without a name, then if we were to assume one's birth name and true name are one and the same, by not having a birth name they would thus also lack a true name. Also let's not forget that sometimes one's birth name does not represent who they are. Take G.G Allin. Born as Jesus Christ Allin, assuming your birth name represents who you are you would then expect him to be Christ like, correct? Let's just say his name is an example of irony.
How would it be possible for someone to lack a true name? One possibility of this being possible is if we take that birth names and true names are the same (disregarding any ironic names) then by not being named at birth they would thus be immune. Alternatively, some say that your true name is the name you give yourself. Now, if someone were to guess the name you've given yourself, would that mean they can just order you around?
In conclusion, the main benefit to having an entity's true name is to give you insight so as to their nature.
Can anyone see auras - Auras part 1
A quick search up on the internet brings up the answer of yes and yet for some, if you were to look at your hand with a relaxed gaze, you wouldn't notice any hues radiating outwards. This of course can change whether you believe you will see radiating colors but for some the inability to see any aura color continues even then. What gives?
First, can an aura actually be physically seen? If the aura is referring to the light that is naturally produced by the human body, then yes. But only if your eyes can somehow see the very low levels of visible light that the human body gives off.
For the most part, most of us will not be able to physically see an aura because our eyes are not adapted to seeing visible light at near dark sky levels and even then, most of the light emitted by humans is the infrared type. However, let us suppose there are some of us who can perceive this low level of light. What if you still couldn't see an aura?
One possible explanation for why some may not be able to see auras on a physical level is because auras don't exist on a physical level. They are said to exist in one's mind... which then would suggest those unable to see color wouldn't have an ideal of what an aura is. Alternatively, in some circles the aura is said to be not limited to visible light and may also include subtle vibrations, slight differences between temperatures and more. Whatever the case may be, if it is possible to see auras, this does not appear to be a universal thing.
How reliable are Aura colors? - Auras part 2
This post will be a bit shorter than normal.
Through research it is said much can be derived from an auras colors. For example, with very few exceptions, most who claim to see auras will view a black aura very negatively while white is good. However, since we last discovered that not everyone who's able to sense auras sees them the same way, it might be reasonable to suspect that even the colors are up to interpretation.
Have you ever noticed that the interpretations of the aura colors ties heavily to color symbolism? Additionally, although a bit nuanced, we can also see a slight change depending on region. For example, red is generally seen as a color of action while sometimes it represents health, anger, blood or passion. Something to take a note of is that both Chinese and Japanese cultures don't make a reference to the ability to see auras. More importantly, they are among the few cultures that doesn't equate blackness with undesirability nor white with wholesomeness automatically. As a result, someone from a Chinese or Japanese cultural background is less likely to share the same interpretations with someone from India who can see auras vs Poland.
Aura mimicry - Auras Part 3
In the spiritual community, it is said that the holes in our auras are the result of negative, dark or parasitic entities that feed off our energy. For the purpose of this post, we will assume they exist. It said they can be detected by their appearance, i.e a hole or dark spot would indicate their presence, but if this were the case, would it even make sense?
If these negative entities really need our energy, then it seems disadvantageous not to include a versatile arsenal. To use an illustration, predators have a variety of ways of catching their prey. Whether that be through to straight up attacking the prey or ambushing their potential meal we can draw some parallels to predatory animals and negative entities. And one interesting feature of some predatory animals is their ability to mimic something harmless. Could some negative entities share a similar trait or ability as well?
If your prey always spots you, it becomes harder to consume them. Sure, you can brute force your way then, but if your target is of an exceptionally strong fortitude and resilience, you may find yourself jolting with your tail behind your back barely in one piece. Now imagine you had the ability to mimic something completely harmless to your prey?
What reason do we have to believe the predatory entities that feed on our auras aren't capable of mimicry as well? What's preventing some of them from taking on an appearance so contradictory, like a bright and soothing spot being the disguised form of aura predator? Is it too far fetched to propose some aura predators may be able to change their colors?
Is consent necessary?
What is it that both psychic vampires and predatory entities within the aura both seemingly have in common? Both require the consent of their target... or do they?
Consent can be defined as an agreement between 2 parties at the simplest level. If you have a business contract with someone, you consent to whatever's detailed in that contract. If you hire someone, you consent to pay them for their wages and in return they consent to doing what you hired them for. Now let's supposed you hired someone but after they finished the job you refused to pay them. Though they agreed to work for you, could you going back on your word be evident they consented? Likewise, if you know anyone whi went on a date and it didn't end so well, did they consent to anything that may have happened to them? Did the worker consented to being cheated and defrauded? If a person who goes on a date then gets robbed, did they consent to having their money forcibly taken from them?
Depending on where you live, consent can be more nuanced than a simple agreement between 2 parties. For example, if one party defrauds another, you cannot expect there to be consent. Additionally, it is generally understood that those who undergo brutal cosmetology don't consent to being reconfigured.
As stated in some previous entries in this community,
'It is human nature to try and get out of a relationship that only presents drawbacks with no reward, not even being ignored.'
Knowing this, a psychic vampire or predatory entity within the aura cannot simply just ask their target to allow them to feed off of them and thus harm them. Instead of relying on consent, a psychic vampire or predatory entity within the aura can use deceit and for some psychic vampires... one way some psychic vampires have been noted to feed is by the very act that propagates a species other than through genetic cloning. Putting 2 & 2 together... who says a psychic vampire or predatory entity within the aura needs anyone's permission when they can just force themselves into them instead?
Dissertation 1
[This post will be longer than most]
So far in this community we have gone over psychic vampyrism, empaths, True Name magick and the reliability of aura reading. As of the time of writing this community a month old with under 10 members (not including the author of this post). Furthermore, since amino does not keep track of community visitors, it makes it slightly harder to guess the average response that a visitor would get here. With that said, some of you may be wondering where I stand on the topics listed thus far.
If I wanted to sum up my stance on all the topics I have listed as such in a few short sentences it would be as such:
Morality, ethics and intent are irrelevant. As I've hopefully made clear, the ability to sense another's emotions does not equate to wanting to help that individual. Likewise, as we have people who actively seek to do harm to others, we should expect likewise from hostile psychic and or supernatural forces. If human perpetrators don't require consent, then why should psychic or supernatural forces require any either. This is further exacerbated by the notion that some of the spirits in the spiritual realm, both friendly and not so friendly, are said to have been human at one point.
The notion that every harm done to you is because you consented to it in some way is absurd. Unless you have some sort of masochistic soul, why would you knowingly incarnate in an abusive household? To learn a lesson? While humans may be generally speaking drawn towards things of a similar if not compatible nature, that in no way justifies abuse. If the Law of Attraction were true, then every time a mother cooks her 5 month old or a father forces himself on his 11 month old, both the 5 month old and 11 month old were attracted to their parents actions. Ridiculous.
As you can probably see, I have a great disdain for the Law of Attraction. Furthermore, from reading some of my earlier posts, you might've come to the conclusion that I also contest with the notion that only people without active malice against others can be psychics, healers, mediums, empaths... etc. Now you may be wondering what's my basis for my claims and to that I say part of it has to do with my skill set, but then again this is only anecdotal evidence. Based on both my natal chart and someone who could supposedly read the "colors" of my aura, I'm apparently good at healing and I exhibited a lot of positive energy. Of course just because I might have a talent for healing does not mean I won't use my abilities to my own advantage. Even positive energy can be used offensively. In the end, psychic or supernatural powers don't require either ethics or morality.
As a conclusion for this dissertation, in my post on Aura mimicry I proposed that the ability to mimic auras might exist. Not only could this ability exist for those already in the spiritual realm, but even some psychics and mages might exhibit the same ability. As I am unable to see auras, I have no ideal of what I proposed there is verified. However I believe it may be possible to do so. As to how... one way that appears to be working for some people is the use of a tulpa or servitor. If you're wandering how a tulpa could be designed to confabulate other psychics... I'll leave that to your guesses for now.
Thanks for reading.
A look into Psychic Vampyrism part 1
Throughout mainstream media, psychic vampires have been consistently portrayed as completely toxic and malignantly narcissistic individuals who feed off of the energy (mostly the joys) of others surrounding them while maintaining a steady supply of hosts by exploiting mostly emotional based vulnerabilities in others, but would such a premise be reasonably practical for a psychic vampire?
If we assume psychic vampires drain the energy out of others, then we must first ask what sort of energy it is they take from others and if there are limitations as to their methods and types. If we presume for the sake of the proposition, that psychic vampires are only capable of sucking up energy from upbeat emotions such as joy and affection, then the result of a feeding should be a sensation of either a numbing of said emotions or an increase in the inverse. As such psychic vampires would appear to be killjoys, yet would this explain why their prey never attempts to get away?
It is human nature to try and get out of a relationship that only presents drawbacks with no reward, not even being ignored. So if a psychic vampire were to only dampen the spirits of those around them, they would A) start to alienate people and B) kill off their energy supply (this is once again assuming there's some sort of limitation to the energy they can take in)
The effects of a feeding - psychic vampyrism part 2
One common description of a vampyric feeding is that it leaves the target feeling drained. Based on a couple of vampyric communities this can be negated by taking a lesser amount of energy thus as to not be detected. Detection of psychic vampyrism may also depend on the type of energy being drained. Absorption of positive based energy will obviously get one called out as a psychic vampire, but would the same hold true for one who feeds off of negativity?
If we assume psychic vampires must feed off of others, then we should ask ourselves what would be a practical means of feeding without getting detected? One answer that very few have put forth online is that to avoid detection, psychic vampires feed off of negativity. This claim is different from one who states psychic vampires cause negativity as by feeding on the negative energy, the host's energy should balance out. By eating away at the negative energy in a host, this should cause them to feel better and hence allow the psychic vampires to be mistaken as a healer. There is a problem with this proposal though. If a psychic vampire can heal another by taking in their negative energy, how would they be able to maintain this steady supply assuming they can only take in one sort of psychic energy?
Perhaps we should reexamine our initial assumptions about the feeding habits of psychic vampires. Maybe instead of only being able to feed on one sort of energy they can feed on several. Maybe the tenant that psychic vampires need consent to feed isn't entirely accurate (a topic for another day). Perhaps psychic vampires aren't just limited to human targets. Whatever the case may be, we still have a lot to learn about the nature of their feeding and their relationship with their hosts.
Just how selfless are empaths really?
Empaths according to the current New Age movement are individuals capable of not only sensing but feeling your emotions as well and want nothing better than to spread love and compassion... though should we believe this claim?
Let us assume that the current New Age definition of empaths is completely accurate, that not only do they sense the emotions of others but they take them in as well. If this is correct, then it would it would make sense for them to want to help you, yes?
Though empaths of the current New Age claim love and self improvement for all is their ambition, why is it that instead of decreasing the amount of people who go for them, they increase incoming traffic while few seemingly ever leave? Sure, perhaps the world has gotten more rotten and that might explain why people flock to the current New Age empaths, but it doesn't explain why those who seek them out generally don't try to leave.
Vampire Empath
If we take that empathy when broken down into its simplest components is the ability to sense the emotional energy of others, then rather having psychic vampires being contrasted with empaths it might be more accurate to say some psychic vampires may in fact be empaths.
The ability to sense another's emotions while generally lauded as a skill for the kind hearted isn't something that's limited to those without ulterior intentions. According to a post on the Queendom blog, Machiavellians scored around a 73 for empathy. To put that simply, as the blog states "Empathy is said to precede compassion or acts of kindness, but the ability to understand the feelings of others can also be used with ill-intent, and Machiavellians know this."
[Dark side of empathy
Just as some empaths may use their skills for malice, so we ought to conclude likewise with vampires who gain energy from the emotions of others. After all, the ability to sense a target's emotions would prove useful to those who feed off of emotion, whether directed towards them or not, higher or lower vibration.
In the end, there's nothing preventing an empath from being truly malicious at heart and likewise even psychic and or empathic Vampyrism can be used for healing others.
How the concept of an empath has changed over time - Empaths Part 2
In the occult world, an empath is generally defined as someone who has empathy or either a psychic like ability to not only detect but also take on another's emotions as their own or has a rather enhanced recognition of others emotions as well as a susceptibility to taking their emotions as their own. Furthermore, if you want to be specific with how empathy tends to be portrayed by the current New Age, it is not enough to be able to sense and feel another's emotions. You also have to have a sense of compassion or irresistible desire to help others, though is the current understanding of empathy and thus empaths limited?
Of what we know about the modern portrayal of an empath, our earliest records of an occupation that most closely resembles how the empath is portrayed today are the soothsayers... correction. Since healers and empaths tend to get conflated with each other, our earliest records of what an empath is would either be a soothsayer or a witch doctor. Either way the purpose of either occupation was to address the emotional concerns of their clients. Yes, soothsayers also worked on the principle of telling the future in regards to a question a client asks about themselves whereas a witch doctor addresses the spiritual ailments which are usually rooted somewhere in the client's psyche. Unlike the modern portrayal of the empath however, one didn't need to feel compassion for another to be a soothsayer and likewise although greatly helpful, being able to feel another's emotions wasn't required to be a witch doctor. So in a way, the modern concept of the empath has somewhat become more specific and yet there is still something that makes this empathy limiting.
At some point in time, whether it was before or after the initiation of the modern New Agers concept of the empath, the field of psychology also started taking a look into empathy and empaths. Like the current New Agers, psychologists view empathy and thus empaths as those who's abilities rely solely around the emotions of others. The difference however is that benevolence is not a prerequisite for being an empath and unlike how the current New Age classifies empaths, in psychology empaths aren't classified as to either their client or target but rather to how they are able to deduce another's emotional state of being. As a result, in psychology there are 3 main types of empaths; affective, cognitive and somatic. Affective empaths are able to feel another's emotions as the result of emotional contagions although they may not necessarily be able to identify exactly what feeling the target is having at based on the physiological changes that occur throughout the body during a notable period of emotional intensity. None of the psychological definitions of empath require them to have benevolence for another although if you were to compare the 3, affective empaths would have the most reason to want to help others as their emotional state is dependent on others whereas cognitive empaths would not as not only are their emotional state independent of others, but their physiological states remain unaffected.
The reliability of a True Name
When it comes to summoning otherworldly entities here, a common method to ensure either loyalty or obedience from the ones summoned is to at the very least know their true name (that and being able to speak or pronounce it in the first place), but have you ever wondered how we came to such a conclusion in the first place and whether our sources are reliable?
In the traditional arts of summoning, it is said that to know the true name of a summoned entity is to allow you complete control over it. Whether this means just saying their true name (and properly as is generally the case) is enough or using their true name as a guideline to instill control may vary upon tradition, but it's said that just knowing and being able to pronounce said true name is good enough. Our first documented reports of such a tradition came from grimoires detailing how to summon and control demons (although if you want to get technical, we either got this notion of having knowledge of another's true name is power either from Greek, Jewish or Assyrian mythology). One such grimoire, the Keys of Solomon notes a specific step of actions and prerequisites that must be taken in order to summon and control a specific demon, and knowing it's true name is part of it. How did Solomon know this though?
Regarding the Keys of Solomon:
According to the Keys of Solomon, just knowing a demon's True Name wasn't enough to ensure it wouldn't try to harm you. When calling forth an entity from another plane, it was typical for the summoner to stand in the middle of various inscriptions so as to protect themselves from that which they were summoning. Having the True Name of the entity they wished to summon was like pinging a number, though texts do indicate one major point of contention summoners had to contend with was unwanted guests posing as the one called for.
Subjugation - True Name Part 2
From a traditional standpoint, having the true name of the entity you wanted to summon was used primarily to ping a specific recipient in the spirit realm. How then were the conjurers able to control their summons?
Based on a couple of treaties in summoning demons, most notably from either the Keys of Solomon or Grimorium Verum, supposing the conjurers manages to summon the specific entity or entities (rare as it might be), the conjurers couldn't simply start commanding them around, no. Usually in order to get a summon to do something you had to provide it with something in return for its services. Now suppose that no matter the deal that is offered, the summon entity refuses to do the task you set out for it. Could you still force them to comply? From a traditional standpoint, yes. To get a rebellious spirit to comply, you would simply threaten them and you would do this by calling out and referencing their True Name. Of course since a couple of the entities summoned were known to have the power of illusion, they could also feign compliance as well.
By the way, you may have recalled in a previous post, summoners were noted to stand in the middle of various inscriptions to protect themselves while summoning. Well even when the targeted summon was successfully called, the conjurer was not to leave their circle of protection until they could get the summon to swear fealty on their name. The easiest way to do this of course was to offer it a deal and then threaten it if it didn't comply by stating it's true name. If the conjurer were to leave the magick circle anytime before this happened (or just whenever any entity had been summoned) they ran the risk of assault, possible spirit possession and even death. Oh, and let's not forget some of the summons were well skilled in the art of illusion, so even hearing an oath of loyalty wasn't enough for all of them.
No Name - True Name Part 3
In order for true name magick to work, the target would obviously have to have a true name but what would happen if they did not?
Before we begin we should temporarily discuss the difference between one's birth name and true name. Your birth name is obviously the name that was given to you upon birth. Your true name however, is a name which is supposed to symbolize and represent who you are and as such your birth name and true name need not be the same. Case in point, people born without any names (yes, it is possible although whether or not it's legal is another issue). If someone is born without a name, then if we were to assume one's birth name and true name are one and the same, by not having a birth name they would thus also lack a true name. Also let's not forget that sometimes one's birth name does not represent who they are. Take G.G Allin. Born as Jesus Christ Allin, assuming your birth name represents who you are you would then expect him to be Christ like, correct? Let's just say his name is an example of irony.
How would it be possible for someone to lack a true name? One possibility of this being possible is if we take that birth names and true names are the same (disregarding any ironic names) then by not being named at birth they would thus be immune. Alternatively, some say that your true name is the name you give yourself. Now, if someone were to guess the name you've given yourself, would that mean they can just order you around?
In conclusion, the main benefit to having an entity's true name is to give you insight so as to their nature.
Can anyone see auras - Auras part 1
A quick search up on the internet brings up the answer of yes and yet for some, if you were to look at your hand with a relaxed gaze, you wouldn't notice any hues radiating outwards. This of course can change whether you believe you will see radiating colors but for some the inability to see any aura color continues even then. What gives?
First, can an aura actually be physically seen? If the aura is referring to the light that is naturally produced by the human body, then yes. But only if your eyes can somehow see the very low levels of visible light that the human body gives off.
For the most part, most of us will not be able to physically see an aura because our eyes are not adapted to seeing visible light at near dark sky levels and even then, most of the light emitted by humans is the infrared type. However, let us suppose there are some of us who can perceive this low level of light. What if you still couldn't see an aura?
One possible explanation for why some may not be able to see auras on a physical level is because auras don't exist on a physical level. They are said to exist in one's mind... which then would suggest those unable to see color wouldn't have an ideal of what an aura is. Alternatively, in some circles the aura is said to be not limited to visible light and may also include subtle vibrations, slight differences between temperatures and more. Whatever the case may be, if it is possible to see auras, this does not appear to be a universal thing.
How reliable are Aura colors? - Auras part 2
This post will be a bit shorter than normal.
Through research it is said much can be derived from an auras colors. For example, with very few exceptions, most who claim to see auras will view a black aura very negatively while white is good. However, since we last discovered that not everyone who's able to sense auras sees them the same way, it might be reasonable to suspect that even the colors are up to interpretation.
Have you ever noticed that the interpretations of the aura colors ties heavily to color symbolism? Additionally, although a bit nuanced, we can also see a slight change depending on region. For example, red is generally seen as a color of action while sometimes it represents health, anger, blood or passion. Something to take a note of is that both Chinese and Japanese cultures don't make a reference to the ability to see auras. More importantly, they are among the few cultures that doesn't equate blackness with undesirability nor white with wholesomeness automatically. As a result, someone from a Chinese or Japanese cultural background is less likely to share the same interpretations with someone from India who can see auras vs Poland.
Aura mimicry - Auras Part 3
In the spiritual community, it is said that the holes in our auras are the result of negative, dark or parasitic entities that feed off our energy. For the purpose of this post, we will assume they exist. It said they can be detected by their appearance, i.e a hole or dark spot would indicate their presence, but if this were the case, would it even make sense?
If these negative entities really need our energy, then it seems disadvantageous not to include a versatile arsenal. To use an illustration, predators have a variety of ways of catching their prey. Whether that be through to straight up attacking the prey or ambushing their potential meal we can draw some parallels to predatory animals and negative entities. And one interesting feature of some predatory animals is their ability to mimic something harmless. Could some negative entities share a similar trait or ability as well?
If your prey always spots you, it becomes harder to consume them. Sure, you can brute force your way then, but if your target is of an exceptionally strong fortitude and resilience, you may find yourself jolting with your tail behind your back barely in one piece. Now imagine you had the ability to mimic something completely harmless to your prey?
What reason do we have to believe the predatory entities that feed on our auras aren't capable of mimicry as well? What's preventing some of them from taking on an appearance so contradictory, like a bright and soothing spot being the disguised form of aura predator? Is it too far fetched to propose some aura predators may be able to change their colors?
Is consent necessary?
What is it that both psychic vampires and predatory entities within the aura both seemingly have in common? Both require the consent of their target... or do they?
Consent can be defined as an agreement between 2 parties at the simplest level. If you have a business contract with someone, you consent to whatever's detailed in that contract. If you hire someone, you consent to pay them for their wages and in return they consent to doing what you hired them for. Now let's supposed you hired someone but after they finished the job you refused to pay them. Though they agreed to work for you, could you going back on your word be evident they consented? Likewise, if you know anyone whi went on a date and it didn't end so well, did they consent to anything that may have happened to them? Did the worker consented to being cheated and defrauded? If a person who goes on a date then gets robbed, did they consent to having their money forcibly taken from them?
Depending on where you live, consent can be more nuanced than a simple agreement between 2 parties. For example, if one party defrauds another, you cannot expect there to be consent. Additionally, it is generally understood that those who undergo brutal cosmetology don't consent to being reconfigured.
As stated in some previous entries in this community,
'It is human nature to try and get out of a relationship that only presents drawbacks with no reward, not even being ignored.'
Knowing this, a psychic vampire or predatory entity within the aura cannot simply just ask their target to allow them to feed off of them and thus harm them. Instead of relying on consent, a psychic vampire or predatory entity within the aura can use deceit and for some psychic vampires... one way some psychic vampires have been noted to feed is by the very act that propagates a species other than through genetic cloning. Putting 2 & 2 together... who says a psychic vampire or predatory entity within the aura needs anyone's permission when they can just force themselves into them instead?
Dissertation 1
[This post will be longer than most]
So far in this community we have gone over psychic vampyrism, empaths, True Name magick and the reliability of aura reading. As of the time of writing this community a month old with under 10 members (not including the author of this post). Furthermore, since amino does not keep track of community visitors, it makes it slightly harder to guess the average response that a visitor would get here. With that said, some of you may be wondering where I stand on the topics listed thus far.
If I wanted to sum up my stance on all the topics I have listed as such in a few short sentences it would be as such:
Morality, ethics and intent are irrelevant. As I've hopefully made clear, the ability to sense another's emotions does not equate to wanting to help that individual. Likewise, as we have people who actively seek to do harm to others, we should expect likewise from hostile psychic and or supernatural forces. If human perpetrators don't require consent, then why should psychic or supernatural forces require any either. This is further exacerbated by the notion that some of the spirits in the spiritual realm, both friendly and not so friendly, are said to have been human at one point.
The notion that every harm done to you is because you consented to it in some way is absurd. Unless you have some sort of masochistic soul, why would you knowingly incarnate in an abusive household? To learn a lesson? While humans may be generally speaking drawn towards things of a similar if not compatible nature, that in no way justifies abuse. If the Law of Attraction were true, then every time a mother cooks her 5 month old or a father forces himself on his 11 month old, both the 5 month old and 11 month old were attracted to their parents actions. Ridiculous.
As you can probably see, I have a great disdain for the Law of Attraction. Furthermore, from reading some of my earlier posts, you might've come to the conclusion that I also contest with the notion that only people without active malice against others can be psychics, healers, mediums, empaths... etc. Now you may be wondering what's my basis for my claims and to that I say part of it has to do with my skill set, but then again this is only anecdotal evidence. Based on both my natal chart and someone who could supposedly read the "colors" of my aura, I'm apparently good at healing and I exhibited a lot of positive energy. Of course just because I might have a talent for healing does not mean I won't use my abilities to my own advantage. Even positive energy can be used offensively. In the end, psychic or supernatural powers don't require either ethics or morality.
As a conclusion for this dissertation, in my post on Aura mimicry I proposed that the ability to mimic auras might exist. Not only could this ability exist for those already in the spiritual realm, but even some psychics and mages might exhibit the same ability. As I am unable to see auras, I have no ideal of what I proposed there is verified. However I believe it may be possible to do so. As to how... one way that appears to be working for some people is the use of a tulpa or servitor. If you're wandering how a tulpa could be designed to confabulate other psychics... I'll leave that to your guesses for now.
Thanks for reading.
Last edited by a moderator:
