The Nature Of Spirits/Servitors

[I_am_suprised]

I just read Six Ways by Aidan Wachter. In one section they cover the making of servitors. They said that you don't really make them, you more call on existing spirits and one that is willing you work with you under your requirements shows up.
This threw me for a loop as servitor magick is one of the first types that I explored. Could it really be that I've been working with spirits this entire time? Jason Miller has a similar position as Aidan, except he says you call on formless spirits and give them form and direction.
I've also noticed that many evocations methods have a lot of similarities to making a servitor. I've been trying to contact spirits for like 2 years, I've been worried about unintentionally creating thought forms so I've been avoiding certain methods. If there is really no divide between artificial and real spirits that would mean I'm so much closer than I thought. I could probably make full contact with an angel or demon in 1-2 months.

So I want to hear from you guys

• What do you personally think about this?
• What do paradigms and systems that you are familiar say about this?
• Any ideas on how I could possibly test this? Directly or indirectly?

 

[dannerz]

As far as i know, servitors are created from the blood of your astral body.
They grow up and tend to have qualities of their makers.
Spirits and servitors can interact.
Well made servitors can do magical ceremonies and such.
I been making servies for years and they cooperate like a family mostly.

I think only noobs need to destroy their servies after their task is done.

 

[KjEno186]

They said that you don't really make them

I have read Damon Brand's book on creating personal servitors, and he would disagree with the notion that they aren't created by you for a purpose. Who is right? It's a human tendency to jump to conclusions, take sides, limit oneself to all possibilities. What if you could create your own spirit from your very own thoughts? What if you could summon a formless spirit and imbue it with the power of your thoughts? Would you be able to know the difference?

Eliphas Lévi wrote:

The abbot Trithemius, who taught magic to Cornelius Agrippa, explains in his Steganographia the secret of conjurations and evocations in a very philosophical and natural manner, but perhaps, for that very reason, it is too simple and too facile. To evoke a spirit, he says, is to enter into the dominant thought of that spirit, and if we raise ourselves morally higher at the same time, we will lead that spirit to us and he will serve us; otherwise he will lead us into his circle and we will serve him.​

See the importance of thought to spirit? Our minds swim in a sea of the substance of thought much as fish swim in the ocean and yet remain individual fish... and the substance of thought is the same as that of spirit.

 

[I_am_suprised]

Would you be able to know the difference?

I'm leaning towards no, which is why I asked. To see if anyone had some way of figuring it out.

Post automatically merged: Aug 27, 2023

As far as i know, servitors are created from the blood of your astral body.
They grow up and tend to have qualities of their makers.
Spirits and servitors can interact.
Well made servitors can do magical ceremonies and such.
I been making servies for years and they cooperate like a family mostly.

I think only noobs need to destroy their servies after their task is done.

I have up till now, been working under similar assumptions that servitors are made from part of the astral body. I also agree about not destroying them, I always feel a little attached after making them. And from a purely selfish perspective the longer one is active the better it gets at its job.

 

[beardedeldridge]

I’ve worked with servitors and spirits both over short and long time periods. But honestly with magick and spirits the answer often shifts with whether you are taking a personal perspective or looking at it from a 10,000 ft aerial view (and how you tilt your head and how much you squint your eyes for that matter).

Couple of things that I have always found to be truth when I go looking for concrete objective answers are these:

*Uncertainty is uncomfortable but certainty is absurd.

and

*When you become comfortable with uncertainty, infinite possibilities open…

But we humans love to “know” the answers and we like to listen to people who swear they have it all figured out (I know I do).

If you want my advice, I wouldn’t worry about the difference and similarities. Just approach each as their own thing as they are traditionally portrayed (don’t reinvent the wheel just yet).

That being said I have no problem using servitors for temporary engagements but if I had to do it over again I would still have my first servitor but I definitely wouldn’t have kept them all.

-Eld

 

[I_am_suprised]

So for those interested in this I'm referring to this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the servitor section in Six Ways. Six Ways has been uploaded to this Website.

 

[Roma]

Is it worth considering that the substances in the physical body of the human are actually elementals?

Similarly for the emotional and mental bodies.

These elementals are usually managed by lesser devas (nature spirits)

Sometimes some of the nature spirits quit - producing autism for example

The rest of Existence has a similar structure: elementals managed by nature spirits managed by higher devas managed by ......

The design functionality of the Earth human allows suitably refined individuals to move out of the human kingdom into the higher deva kingdom. This occurs after 3rd stage enlightenment

At this stage of our solar system suitable refinement is almost always based on right relationship

 

[I_am_suprised]

Is it worth considering that the substances in the physical body of the human are actually elementals?

I believe so, I think that is why the two authors I'm talking about take this stance on servitors. They may or may not agree on the specifics with you, but they have a very animistic view of reality where everything has a spirit(s). From that viewpoint there would be no divide between spirits and thoughtforms, there would be just spirits filling different niches.

 

[Roma]

If people really want servitors they may be better to look for servitors with known track records.

Many highly skilled humans have lesser devas that assist in design and operations. For example some composers did not bother with drafts - going directly to the final version. And Kekule received the structure of benzene in a dream - the first known ring molecule.

When I was struggling in a choir, I had the thought of asking the familiar spirit of a long dead singer to help me. It was available and willing. So the next choir practice I hit a low note (from a high note) without any uncertainty after a year of struggle. The alto section was having the same trouble.

My voice has been improving since then.

 

[KjEno186]

I've been reading Six Ways more carefully, and I see what Wachter means about servitors being or using existing spirits. If you look at it more closely, what you are doing is stating your intentions into the transpersonal spaces and associating that intention with a sigil and a promise of reward. You also, according to Wachter and Miller, make offerings to such spirits according to how well they perform.

What is the better method? I cannot give you an objective opinion (how oxymoronic!), but let's suppose that you follow the 'existing spirit' model and make offerings to your servitor (water, fire, smoke). Does that interaction make you feel different towards the servitor than, say, the method promoted by Brand where that servitor is an idea that comes from your own mind?

 

[I_am_suprised]

let's suppose that you follow the 'existing spirit' model and make offerings to your servitor (water, fire, smoke). Does that interaction make you feel different towards the servitor than, say, the method promoted by Brand where that servitor is an idea that comes from your own mind?

I wouldn't feel much different towards the servitors, per say. However; it would dramatically change my practice and I might be so much closer to my goal of full contact with spirits than I thought.

Many of the sources I've read have warned me off of visualizing spirits, the logic being that you may just create a thoughtform, an imitation. As someone who makes servitors that made sense to me, but if artificial spirits aren't a thing then there is no danger.

I use Damon Brand's method of servitor creation plus a 10 minute visualization session everyday. The body of the servitors become more solid over the week, I can't "see" them but they are more coherent. Like if I want to see them at a different angle they actually have to turn rather than instantaneously switching position.

If I did longer visualizations, several times a day, for 2-3 months it seems likely they become so vivid I could interact with them. Maybe I could pick a group of spirits, choose one among them known to be intermediary, use a contract slightly modified from the way Brand does it, then use that one to make contact with the others more easily. A very slow evocation to visible manifestation.

I found a practice like this in a manual for dream yoga. You visualize a dakini, at first to get indirect aid but over the time you practice this method they're supposed to start providing direct guidance. I think I've seen something similar in a Jan Frie book but with deities.

I also thought evocation was the way to get in contact with spirits and was separate from what I did with servitors, but Summoning Spirits has a method of using evocation to make servitors. Then I see stories of people evoking all kinds of things from concepts, to books, to places, to their own DNA! Maybe evocation makes thought forms or maybe animists are right. I was preparing to use the book Evoking Eternity and I realized the process laid out in that is very similar to Brand's method of servitor creation.

I am moving forward with practical experimentation, but I am worried I may walking into delusion. Maybe it won't work at all and this query will become irrelevant. It is my way to keep silent on ongoing operations so I'll say no more.

In conclusion, no to your written question, yes to the implied question. This literally changes everything.

 

[Roma]

A woman I know, when she asked her brain elemental (servitor?) whom it served, it said: your father.

It took months of effort before it served her without wavering.

Is it common to capture the servitors of others?

How to test servitors?

 

[KjEno186]

In the old grimoires the goal is to summon a named spirit. Quite often the grimoire will have descriptions including information that named spirits command a large quantity of lesser spirits, and they "give good familiars." It's all very hierarchical, much like cultures from which the grimoires came. One has to be "important" to stand before demon kings and "demand" that they obey you. I think the "familiar" one can request is hardly different from a servitor in actual practice, but you sure had to do a lot of extra work to go all the way to the top of the hierarchy to get it.

Perhaps one could view the creation of servitors as a "help wanted" sign, but instead of going to a major corporate agency (e.g. Goetic Kings & Dukes, LLC ), you're picking up a spirit hanging out at the crossroads who sees your "sign" and is willing to work on some projects for you. The spirit expects to be paid at the end of the day, of course.

"The story as the spirits told it is that we are more than we think we are, we both live our life as we are aware of it, and at least some of us function to the Others as they function to us. Do you see why I think this symbiosis thing is good to strive for? And why I think being polite is wise?" - Wachter in Six Ways​

 

[Jackson]

While I imagine that could be a thing to occur, I have a hard time believing it to be the case on one person's say so. But then, I don't know the specifics for instance on the line between the "tulpa" phenomenon practiced by mundanes and a thought form with some occult capacity.

My associate, who has demonstrated occult capacity to me, does believe that thought forms can be made. The idea that it cannot would constitute a rejection of ideas about the meldable nature of the astral plane.

 

[I_am_suprised]

I don't know the specifics for instance on the line between the "tulpa" phenomenon practiced by mundanes and a thought form with some occult capacity

This is my personal take other may different answers, especially if they have practical experience with tulpas.

I don't think there is a hard line between the two because the words come from different lingos. I usually use the terms thought form, servitor, and egregore because that's pretty common. A Bardonist might call them elementals, elementaries, larvae, and schema. They refer to the same phenomena but divide it up differently. Tulpa is from it's own lingo without consideration for the other categories.

There are several uses of the word tulpa.

First come from actual eastern esoteric practice, the secrets of which I'm sure no tulpmancer has access to. I hear they have a very strong physical presence, I would probably call them an egregore.

Second, the word tulpa got imported to tulpamancers. There is variation, but they mostly seem to be thoughtforms used for the purpose of companionship. I would just lump them into the category of servitors pointing to Servitor Companions by John Kreiter.

Third, still in tulpamancy but more psychology. Using techniques to develop a secondary personality. Essentially Disassociate Identity Disorder but on purpose without the downsides (hopefully). If this is actually possible it is the most distinctive from anything I do, and I don't have any words to categorize it.

Of course if there is no such thing as artificial spirits then the categories are kinda irrelevant, expect to denote technique and paradigm. The third usage still stays in a world of it's own.

 

[Roma]

With Mystics and Magicians in Tibet gives an account of a tulpa that could be seen by others

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[I_am_suprised]

The idea that it cannot would constitute a rejection of ideas about the meldable nature of the astral plane

Thank you, an actual counterpoint! That is definitely something to consider that it might change our models of the astral plane. If someone was successfully using that model in their practice it could disqualify the concept that thought forms can't be made. Or if not disqualify, make the burden of proof much higher.

Unfortunately for me, none of my work rests on the idea of a really meldable astral plane, so this doesn't quite settle it in my mind. However I will keep it in mind going forward.

 

[Ancient]

change our models

I think this is the best way to look at it. Whether you look at it within the framework of the spirit model, energy model, information model, psychological model, etc., the effect appears to be the same. It's tough to identify the mechanism of action, but it's relatively easy to find comfort in one paradigm over another. For practical uses, pick a favorite and go to town. It also makes sense to me that all of the above could be true, existing only as probabilities until they're brought through by a pattern of thought, feeling, and action. I guess this is what Miller means by "formless".

I wonder if the experience of such an entity could be enriched by applying some ideas from several different paradigms at once? Say, call a local spirit, and create a servitor equivalent, then treat them as the same being.

 

[Roma]

call a local spirit, and create a servitor equivalent, then treat them as the same being.

I wonder if the source/owner of the local spirit would be pleased

 

[KjEno186]

none of my work rests on the idea of a really meldable astral plane, so this doesn't quite settle it in my mind.

This fits again with Wachter's perspective where he says, "We don't as much steer the actual magical current as steer into it, and then ride it. The more clearly we can see and feel what we are, the more likely we are to be able to see what we need." Being able to divine or otherwise sense the flows of power around us makes sense, I think.

Servitors are created often as a means of changing one's own habits. I think if I had enough power to create a servitor as an offshoot of my own being and charge it with additional power to cause a change in personal habits, thoughts, and feelings, well then, I would have had that power to meld my own astral to begin with. Indeed, people intentionally build up ideas and feelings on purpose to accomplish change without ever deliberately creating a servitor.

But if the servitor is just a calling card to a spirit entity which agrees to help us make the desired change, then what we offer isn't a change in the astral, relying solely on the power of our minds. We provide what the spirits desire, because we have power as physically manifested beings. In return, the spirit assists us to steer and/or change the astral. It becomes a symbiosis (and thus I will do more than I would have thought possible).

I can already hear the objections being raised about forming such a relationship from the puritanical purists among us who may attempt to call such a spirit a "parasite" or similar negative term (a subtle form of word magic used to dissuade people from actually doing anything). When Wachter asked for a name, he got the reply: "I am not a dog, I won't come when you call, you know where to find me." (Though we do name servitors, it doesn't mean that is the actual name of the spirit itself.)

Finally, I think this thread contributed to a change in my opinion from that of Brand's perspective to the one espoused by Wachter. It's a subtle shift, but it offers me a certain motivational aspect I didn't feel before.